Marlo MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'search sanctions' gives no information about whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or any rate limits. It fails to describe any behavioral traits beyond the basic action implied by the name.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

While concise with only two words, the description is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks front-loaded critical information and doesn't earn its place by adding value. The brevity comes at the cost of clarity, making it ineffective as a tool description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of the input schema (with 1 parameter containing multiple nested fields), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does beyond the name, how to use it, what to expect in return, or how it fits with sibling tools. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, with 1 parameter ('request') that contains nested properties like 'name,' 'type_of_schema,' and others. The description 'search sanctions' adds no semantic information about these parameters—what they mean, how they should be used, or what values are expected. It doesn't compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'search sanctions' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what kind of sanctions (e.g., financial, trade, maritime) or what resources are being searched. While it includes the verb 'search,' it lacks specificity about the domain or scope of the search operation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given sibling tools like 'search_individual_sanction' and 'get_sanctions_case_manager_details,' there's no indication of how this tool differs—whether it's broader, more specific, or serves a different purpose. No context about appropriate use cases is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.