ls_list_stores

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), the description discloses the non-obvious behavior that the tool ignores the allowlist and returns every store visible to the API key, including those outside the allowlist. It also reveals pagination details (meta.page with currentPage, lastPage, total). This adds significant behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose. The cross-store note is slightly long but packed with essential caveats. No fluff, but the third sentence could be tightened. Overall, efficient and well-structured.

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 the tool's simplicity (no required parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description covers the key aspects: purpose, pagination response, and a critical authorization boundary. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool, though a brief note on the returned store object shape would be marginally helpful.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for all three parameters (include, pageSize, pageNumber) with descriptions. The tool description adds some context about pagination in the response, but does not elaborate on parameter values or syntax. Given the complete schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('List all stores') and the scope ('for the authenticated user'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ls_get_store (single store retrieval) by emphasizing 'all stores.' The verb is specific 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?

Provides clear context that the tool lists all stores for the authenticated user, and includes a crucial cross-store note explaining that LEMONSQUEEZY_ALLOWED_STORE_IDS does not gate this tool. It suggests pairing with a scoped API key for enforceability, which guides use. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (like ls_get_store) or state exclusions.

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