connect_to_cookidoo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It effectively discloses that this is a stateful operation (stores a session), describes a 4-step internal process including credential loading from .env and country/language normalization (defaulting to ro/en), and documents error conditions (ValueError for missing credentials, Exception for auth failure). This is rich behavioral disclosure beyond the minimal requirements.

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 numbered steps, a return type section, and error documentation. It's comprehensive but not bloated. Minor deduction for the Returns/Raises sections being somewhat formal/code-like, but overall every section earns its place and there is no wasted prose.

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?

For a zero-parameter authentication setup tool, this description is thorough: it explains the full authentication flow, environment file requirements, localization logic, default values, success/failure outcomes, and error types. The output schema exists, so return value details are covered structurally. Given the tool's relative simplicity and the presence of an output schema, this is complete.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description adds value by explaining that credentials come from the .env file and that COOKIDOO_COUNTRY/COOKIDOO_LANGUAGE are optional environment-based values with defaults (ro/en), which helps the agent understand where configuration lives without needing parameters. This is meaningful context beyond just 'no params'.

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 this tool authenticates with Cookidoo and stores the session. The verb 'Authenticate' with the specific resource 'Cookidoo' is precise, and it clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools which all perform recipe/meal-plan operations rather than authentication.

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 explicitly states 'This tool must be called before using other Cookidoo tools,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. While it doesn't name specific sibling alternatives, the ordering requirement is explicit and actionable for an agent, and the context that all siblings depend on this session makes the usage boundary obvious.

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