ls_list_affiliates

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description goes beyond by revealing key behavioral quirks: it is NOT gated by LEMONSQUEEZY_ALLOWED_STORE_IDS and returns affiliates for every store the API key can see, including non-allowed ones. It also explains pagination mechanics via 'meta.page' (currentPage, lastPage, total). This is exactly the kind of context that annotations cannot convey.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a compact pagination note, then a detailed cross-store caveat. Every sentence earns its place; the caveat is lengthy but crucial for correct usage. It is structured logically and avoids redundancy.

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?

The description provides essential information for a list tool: what it lists, pagination behavior, and a critical gotcha about store scoping. There is no output schema, but the description explains the pagination envelope (meta.page) sufficiently. Given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, this description is highly 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 each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds context about pagination ('check meta.page...') and mentions the userEmail filter, but does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since 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 function: 'List all affiliates for the authenticated user's stores, optionally filtered by user email.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('affiliates'), and adds scope ('authenticated user's stores') and a filter. This distinguishes it from siblings like ls_get_affiliate (single retrieval) and other list tools.

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 explains when to use the tool by highlighting its cross-store behavior, and gives a practical recommendation: 'Pair with a scoped LemonSqueezy API key for true cross-store enforcement.' It implies that if store-scoped results are needed, one must use a scoped API key. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., ls_get_affiliate) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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