CookUnity MCP

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying the return structure (JSON with fields like id, name, email, etc.) and output format options, which aren't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions.

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: a summary sentence, Args, Returns, and Examples. It's appropriately sized, but the 'Returns' section could be more concise by integrating with the summary. Every sentence adds value, though minor trimming is possible.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), rich annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return values adequately. However, it lacks explicit usage guidelines compared to siblings and doesn't mention authentication or error handling, which could be beneficial for an AI agent.

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 the parameter 'response_format' fully documented in the schema (enum values, default, description). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the parameter in the 'Args' section and examples, but doesn't provide additional semantic context or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 verb 'Get' and enumerates the exact resources retrieved: user profile, subscription plan, delivery schedule, addresses, and credits. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'cookunity_get_cart' or 'cookunity_list_orders' by focusing exclusively on comprehensive user information rather than cart, orders, or meal details.

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 implies usage context by listing the types of user data retrieved, suggesting it's for viewing user account details. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cookunity_get_cart' or 'cookunity_list_orders', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites for usage.

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