ls_list_orders

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It merely states 'List orders' without disclosing whether it is read-only, requires authentication (implied by api_key but not stated), supports pagination, or has rate limits. The agent gains minimal behavioral insight beyond the tool name.

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 at one sentence, with no wasted words. However, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points or sections) that could help parse information quickly. For a tool with multiple parameters, slightly more structure would improve clarity without sacrificing brevity.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not address pagination, filtering by user_email, authentication via api_key, or the response format. The agent has insufficient information to use the tool correctly without external knowledge.

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 0%, leaving description to clarify parameters, but it does not mention any. Parameter names like api_key, store_id, user_email, page, per_page are self-explanatory to some extent, but the description adds no value in explaining their purpose, defaults, or constraints. This is a critical gap.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'orders' within the context of 'a Lemon Squeezy store'. This is distinct from sibling tools like ls_list_customers or ls_list_products, and it differentiates from ls_get_order (which retrieves a single order). The purpose is immediately understandable.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as ls_get_order for a specific order or other list tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, filtering options, or pagination usage. The description lacks any contextual hints for effective selection.

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