List modifiers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns both groups and their options, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, default limits, or whether soft-deleted records are excluded by default—though the schema's show_deleted parameter hints at that. No contradiction with 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?

A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then gives a concrete example of the content. No wasted words. It could add a bit more context, but for a list tool this is appropriately concise.

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 7 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It doesn't mention pagination behavior, default limit, or how modifier_ids filters results. The annotations cover safety, and the schema covers parameters, but an agent might still be unsure about the return shape or how to page through results.

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 86%, so the schema already documents most parameters (limit, show_deleted, timestamps). The description adds the meaning of 'modifier groups and their options' but doesn't explain the modifier_ids parameter or how filtering interacts with pagination. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries most of the semantic weight.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('modifier groups and their options'), with examples of what those options are ('sizes or extras'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like loyverse_upsert_modifier (which writes) and other list_* tools (which target different resources). It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the resource is specific enough that an agent can tell it apart.

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 a read-only listing use case, and the readOnlyHint annotation reinforces that this is for retrieval rather than mutation. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over loyverse_upsert_modifier or loyverse_list_items, and no mention of pagination or filtering strategies. The context is clear but exclusions/alternatives are not stated.

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