CookUnity MCP

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

Annotations already provide important behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, etc.), but the description adds valuable context beyond these. It specifies the search scope across multiple fields, mentions default behavior for the date parameter ('Defaults to next Monday'), and includes error handling information ('Empty query returns validation error'), which are not covered by annotations. No contradictions with annotations exist.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by organized sections (Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling). Every sentence serves a clear purpose, with no wasted words, and the examples efficiently illustrate practical applications.

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 (5 parameters, search functionality) and rich annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains the search scope, provides examples, and includes error handling. However, without an output schema, the description could benefit from more detail on the return structure (e.g., what fields are in 'meals[]'), though it does specify the JSON format.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mainly by reinforcing the query's search scope and providing example usage. It doesn't introduce new parameter semantics or clarify ambiguities not already addressed in the schema descriptions.

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 ('Search meals by keyword') and resource ('meals'), with explicit scope ('across name, description, cuisine, chef, ingredients, and diet tags'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'cookunity_get_menu' (which likely lists without search) and 'cookunity_get_meal_details' (which focuses on specific meals).

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 clear context for when to use this tool (keyword-based searching across multiple fields) and includes examples that illustrate different use cases (finding dishes by ingredient, diet, or chef). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools, such as when to use 'cookunity_get_menu' instead for browsing without specific search terms.

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