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. While 'Get details' implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format/details are returned. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps for an agent to understand.

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 gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools that could cause confusion, the description is insufficiently complete. A simple retrieval tool needs more context about what 'details' are returned, how this differs from listing operations, and any behavioral constraints. The current description leaves too many questions unanswered for effective agent use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'usageRecordId' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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' and resource 'details of a specific usage record by ID', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_usage_records' or 'get_subscription_item_usage', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific retrieval tool versus other related tools.

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. With siblings like 'list_usage_records' and 'get_subscription_item_usage', there's no indication of when this single-record retrieval is preferred over listing or other specific retrieval methods. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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