ls_list_discount_redemptions

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description reveals pagination behavior ('check meta.page...') and the cross-store constraint with LEMONSQUEEZY_ALLOWED_STORE_IDS, explaining the API key as the true boundary. This adds substantial behavioral context not present in the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by pagination and cross-store notes. Every sentence adds value; no filler or repetition of schema/annotations.

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 output schema, the description covers the essential response element (meta.page with currentPage, lastPage, total). It includes optional filters, pagination, and the cross-store constraint, making it complete for this tool's complexity.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal param semantics by mentioning 'optionally filtered by discount or order', which maps to discountId and orderId, but doesn't elaborate beyond what the schema already documents.

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 starts with 'List all discount redemptions' — a specific verb and resource that clearly states the tool's function. It also mentions optional filters by discount or order, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ls_get_discount_redemption.

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 clear context: listing all redemptions with optional filters and pagination. It also includes a specific conditional guideline (when LEMONSQUEEZY_ALLOWED_STORE_IDS is set, at least one filter is required). It doesn't explicitly state when to use alternatives like ls_get_discount_redemption, but the listing scope is clear.

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