CookUnity MCP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it explains error handling (empty cart returns error, invalid IDs cause API errors), describes the two output formats, and provides practical examples. While it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, it adds meaningful behavioral information.

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, Examples, Error Handling) and every sentence earns its place. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides necessary details without redundancy. The examples are practical and illustrative without being verbose.

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, and 100% schema coverage, the description provides complete context. It covers purpose, parameters, outputs, examples, and error handling. While there's no output schema, the description thoroughly documents both JSON and Markdown return formats with specific field listings.

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 all three parameters. The description adds minimal additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions - it mentions the default date behavior and clarifies that omitting meals uses current cart contents, but these details are already covered in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get' and resource 'full price breakdown for a delivery' with specific components listed (subtotal, taxes, delivery fee, discounts, total). It distinguishes from siblings like cookunity_get_cart (which shows cart contents) and cookunity_confirm_order (which finalizes purchase) by focusing specifically on pricing calculations.

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 about when to use it: to price either specific meals or current cart contents. It mentions the default behavior (next Monday) and error conditions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings for different pricing scenarios.

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