lemon-squeezy-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. It states the tool retrieves details but doesn't describe what 'details' include (e.g., discount amount, validity period), whether it's a read-only operation (implied but not explicit), error handling (e.g., for invalid IDs), or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get details of a specific discount by ID'). There is no wasted verbiage, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word serves a functional role in conveying the tool's intent.

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 tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details (e.g., what 'details' entail) and usage context. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to explain the tool's operation and expected results, leaving gaps for the agent to navigate.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'discountId' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples of valid IDs or format constraints). Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get details') and resource ('a specific discount by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_discounts' by specifying retrieval of a single discount rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other 'get_' tools (e.g., 'get_customer'), leaving some room for improvement in sibling differentiation.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid discount ID), contrast with 'list_discounts' for bulk retrieval, or specify use cases like verifying discount existence or fetching details for a known ID. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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