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. It mentions 'optional filtering' and 'useful for finding' information, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as pagination behavior (implied by the 'page' parameter but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or return format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second adds context. It is front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the second sentence could be more specific (e.g., clarifying what 'finding' entails), slightly reducing efficiency.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or important behavioral aspects like pagination or filtering mechanics. For a list tool with multiple sibling alternatives, more context is needed to guide effective 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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('email' and 'page'). The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'optional filtering' in general, but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema specifies (e.g., how filtering works or pagination details). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List customers with optional filtering.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('customers'), and mentions the scope includes 'customer information, subscription status, and order history.' However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_customer' or 'search_orders,' which slightly reduces its specificity.

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 minimal guidance: 'Useful for finding customer information, subscription status, and order history.' It implies usage for retrieval but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_customer' (for single customers) or 'search_orders' (for order-based queries). No explicit when-not or alternative recommendations are included.

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