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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the supported year range and date format, but it does not explain behavior for unsupported dates, error handling, output structure, or whether the operation is read-only. For a simple query tool this is partially sufficient but still leaves notable unknowns.

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 one tight sentence that packs in the purpose, returned lunar information, supported years, and parameter format. There is no redundant text, and the important details are front-loaded before the parameter note.

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 tool with a single parameter and no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core calling contract: what date to use, what years are supported, and what kind of data comes back. However, it does not describe the response shape, what happens for unsupported dates, or the exact holiday/adjustment fields, leaving some gaps for an agent that must interpret the result.

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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the single parameter's meaning (a Gregorian date to query) and providing the required format (YYYY-MM-DD). It also constrains the valid range via the supported-year note, which adds real value beyond the raw schema.

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 states a specific verb ('查询'/'query'), a clear resource (Chinese statutory holidays and workday adjustments for a given Gregorian date), and adds that lunar calendar info is also returned. It is easy to distinguish from siblings like list_holidays and solar_to_lunar because this tool targets a single date and combines holiday/lunar context.

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 the tool is for querying a specific date and states the supported years (2025, 2026), but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over list_holidays or solar_to_lunar, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions. The usage context is clear but the routing guidance is left implicit.

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