CookUnity MCP

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it emphasizes the importance of fresh data retrieval (addressing potential caching issues), mentions that users may have made changes between calls, and includes error handling guidance for auth errors. Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive traits, so the description appropriately supplements rather than contradicts them.

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 (description, important note, args, returns, examples, error handling) and front-loads the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though the 'IMPORTANT' section is somewhat lengthy. Every sentence adds value, but minor trimming could improve conciseness.

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, rich annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc.), and detailed return structure documentation in the description, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral context, parameters, return format, examples, and error handling—providing everything needed for effective tool use despite the lack of a formal output schema.

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 fully documents the single parameter (response_format). The description repeats the parameter in the Args section but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but not enhanced parameter documentation.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('List upcoming delivery weeks') and resources ('deliveries'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it provides 'full details' including confirmed orders, cart contents, auto-picks, skip/pause status, and deadlines. This is more comprehensive than tools like 'cookunity_list_orders' or 'cookunity_get_cart'.

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 provides explicit usage guidelines: 'Always call this tool to get FRESH data before answering any question about delivery status, meals, or orders. NEVER rely on cached or previously returned data.' It also implicitly distinguishes from alternatives by emphasizing comprehensive data retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly name specific sibling tools as alternatives.

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