lemon-squeezy-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool lists records with optional filtering, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors like pagination details (implied by the 'page' parameter), rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's read-only (though listing implies it). This leaves significant gaps for safe agent operation.

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 usage records') and adds a useful qualifier ('optionally filtered by subscription item'). There's no wasted language, 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a listing tool. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., format, fields), pagination behavior (critical with a 'page' parameter), or error handling. This leaves the agent under-informed for reliable 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 fully. The description adds minimal value by mentioning optional filtering by subscription item, which aligns with the 'subscriptionItemId' parameter, but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('List') and resource ('usage records'), and specifies optional filtering by subscription item. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_usage_record' or 'get_subscription_item_usage', which could cause confusion 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_usage_record' or 'get_subscription_item_usage'. It mentions optional filtering but doesn't explain when filtering is appropriate or what happens without it, leaving the agent to guess about context.

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