List modifiers

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses pagination behavior (cursor, fetch_all with 20-page cap), error behavior (verbatim error messages on 400), and the HTTP method (GET). However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only (though implied by GET).

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?

Three sentences: first states purpose and HTTP method, second mentions pagination and field docs, third provides error handling advice. No filler, front-loaded with the most critical information.

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 no output schema, the description should explain return format; it does not, instead deferring to external documentation ('Field names follow the Loyverse API v1.0'). It adequately covers filtering (query param) and pagination, but missing response structure is a gap. For a list tool with nested parameters and no output schema, it is mostly complete but could improve.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by mentioning 'cursor pagination' and the 'capped at 20 pages' safety detail, but these are marginal beyond what the schema provides (e.g., fetch_all description already mentions 'capped at 20 pages'). Baseline 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 'List modifiers from Loyverse (GET /modifiers)', establishing a specific verb+resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools that target different entities (e.g., loyverse_list_category) by naming the specific resource.

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 context on when to use: when listing modifiers. Includes error handling guidance ('adjust the fields and retry' on 400s) and reference to field naming conventions. However, it does not explicitly compare to single-get or create/update/delete tools for contrast.

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