ls_list_license_keys

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: results are paginated and notes to check the 'meta.page' object for currentPage, lastPage, and total. This goes beyond the annotations. No additional info on rate limits or auth is needed for a read-only 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 extremely concise: two sentences covering purpose, filters, and pagination response hints. Every word adds value; no redundancy or fluff.

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 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and good annotations, the description covers filtering and pagination adequately. However, it does not mention that the response contains a list of license key objects (implied by name) or describe the 'include' parameter's effect on response shape. Still, the core usage is well-covered.

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 baseline is 3. The description summarizes filters ('optionally filtered by store, order, or product') and mentions pagination, but does not add new details about parameters like 'include' or pageNumber/pageSize beyond what the schema provides. The pagination note is helpful but not parameter-specific.

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 lists all license keys with optional filters by store, order, or product. It distinguishes from sibling list tools (e.g., ls_list_customers, ls_list_orders) by specifying the resource (license keys). The verb 'List' and resource 'license keys' are precise.

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 when needing to list license keys with optional filters, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives like ls_get_license_key for a single key. Given the sibling tools are all list tools for different entities, the agent can infer the correct tool, but no direct comparison is provided.

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