lemon-squeezy-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions filtering and implies pagination via the 'page' parameter, but doesn't describe the return format, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's read-only. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with two parameters.

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 ('List all discounts') and adds optional context. There's no wasted verbiage, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior, or how results are structured. Given the complexity of listing operations and the lack of structured data, more contextual information would be helpful for an agent.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description adds marginal value by mentioning store filtering, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format details for storeId or pagination behavior). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('discounts'), and includes optional filtering by store. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_discount' (which likely retrieves a single discount), leaving some ambiguity about when to use each.

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, mentioning optional filtering by store but not explaining when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_discount' or other list tools. No context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical 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.