ls_list_prices

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: pagination via meta.page (currentPage, lastPage, total), the cross-store note requiring variantId when an environment variable is set, and the caveat that API key visibility is the real cross-store enforcement boundary. These are not in the annotations and provide actionable behavioral details.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence contributes meaning, though the last sentence is somewhat wordy and grammatically awkward ('Even with that set, Pair with...'). Still, it avoids fluff and gets to the point 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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: enumeration, filtering, pagination format, and a cross-store conditional. It does not elaborate on return fields beyond meta.page, but given the annotations and sibling tool patterns, the context is reasonably 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly linking variantId to filtering, mentioning pagination parameters implicitly, and explaining a conditional requirement for variantId that is not apparent from the schema. This goes slightly beyond the schema descriptions.

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 begins with 'List all prices, optionally filtered by variant' — a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like ls_get_price (single price) or ls_list_products. The optional variant filtering is noted, and the resource is unambiguous.

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 use for fetching multiple prices with optional variant filtering and provides pagination context. It also gives a conditional usage rule (when LEMONSQUEEZY_ALLOWED_STORE_IDS is set, variantId is required). However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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