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 adds useful context about sorting ('most recent first') and hints at filtering capabilities, but doesn't cover important aspects like pagination behavior (implied by the 'page' parameter), rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with large result sets. It adequately describes a read operation but lacks depth.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded with core functionality. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds context about use cases and sorting. There's minimal waste, though the use case examples could be slightly more concise.

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 moderate complexity (list operation with filtering), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers purpose and basic behavior but lacks details on output format, error handling, or comprehensive usage guidelines relative to siblings like 'search_orders'. It meets minimum viability but isn't fully complete.

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 fully documents both parameters ('page' and 'storeId'). The description mentions 'optional filtering' which aligns with the schema but doesn't add any additional semantic meaning, syntax details, or examples beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 as listing orders with optional filtering, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from 'get_order' (singular retrieval) but not explicitly from 'search_orders' (which might offer different filtering capabilities).

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 implied usage guidance by mentioning it's 'useful for finding recent payments, the last successful payment, or browsing order history,' which suggests common scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus 'search_orders' or other sibling tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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