lemon-squeezy-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's a list operation with optional filtering. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination details (implied by 'page' parameter but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'list all' entails (e.g., default sorting, limits). This is a significant gap for a tool with potential data volume concerns.

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 product variants') and adds optional details concisely. There is zero waste, and every word earns its place.

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 a list operation with pagination (implied by 'page' parameter), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, pagination behavior, or error handling, leaving gaps for an AI agent to correctly invoke and interpret results.

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 ('productId' for filtering by product ID, 'page' for pagination). The description adds marginal value by mentioning filtering by 'product or store', but 'store' isn't in the schema, creating slight confusion. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 verb 'List' and resource 'product variants', with optional filtering by product or store. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_variant' (singular) and 'list_products', but doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools like 'list_products' or 'list_stores' beyond the resource type.

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 implies usage for retrieving variants, optionally filtered, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'get_variant' for a single variant or other list tools. It mentions filtering options but lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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