CookUnity MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the 'Always call fresh' warning about caching, the note about empty carts for confirmed orders, and the 'Date not found' error condition. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Note, Error Handling) and front-loaded key information. While slightly verbose due to repeating schema details, every sentence adds value (e.g., caching warning, error handling). No wasted content.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, read-only operation), the description provides complete context: purpose, usage guidelines, parameter details (via schema), behavioral notes (caching, confirmed orders), error handling, and return structure. With annotations covering safety and no output schema needed, this is fully adequate.

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%, with both parameters (date and response_format) fully documented in the schema. The description's Args section repeats this information without adding significant semantic value beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining why the date defaults to next Monday or the practical difference between markdown and json formats.

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 specific action ('Get cart contents') and resource ('for a specific delivery date'), distinguishing it from siblings like cookunity_list_deliveries (which shows confirmed orders) and cookunity_add_to_cart (which modifies the cart). It precisely defines the scope of retrieval.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool ('Always call fresh — NEVER use cached results') and when not to use it ('If the order is already confirmed, cart may be empty — use cookunity_list_deliveries or cookunity_next_delivery instead'). It clearly names alternative tools for different scenarios.

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