vietnamese-calendar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the conversion purpose, omitting details about output format, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, well-formed sentence that states the purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and directly usable, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 simple one-parameter conversion tool, the description covers the core purpose and calendar types. However, it does not specify the format of the returned solar date or any limitations, which would be helpful given the lack of an output schema. It is adequate but leaves minor gaps.

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 input schema already fully describes the date parameter with format and an example. The description adds value by clarifying the calendar systems involved (Vietnamese vs. Gregorian), which is not present in the schema description, thereby enriching parameter meaning.

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 tool's function: converting a lunar date in the Vietnamese calendar to a solar (Gregorian) date. This directly distinguishes it from the reverse sibling tool convert_date_solar2lunar.

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 gives unambiguous context for when to use this tool—when a lunar date in the Vietnamese calendar needs conversion to a Gregorian date. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the direction is clear and the sibling tool names imply the reverse operation.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add the context that the conversion uses the Vietnamese calendar, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose potential edge cases (e.g., invalid dates, timezone dependence) or explicitly state that it is a pure calculation with no side effects.

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 a single, clearly front-loaded sentence that states the tool's purpose without any fluff or repetition. It earns its place with essential information only.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description adequately covers the core purpose and the calendar system. It does not specify the return format, but the output is logically inferable from the tool name and description, making it reasonably complete for a low-complexity tool.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameter, including format and an example. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool converts a solar date to a lunar date, specifying the calendars (Gregorian to Vietnamese). The verb 'convert' is specific, and the direction is explicit, distinguishing it from the sibling tool convert_date_lunar2solar.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: if you have a solar date and need a Vietnamese lunar date, use this. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention the inverse tool or any exclusions. The guidance is minimal.

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

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 fails to state whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, or how errors are handled. For a simple getter, the lack of explicit safety or side-effect information leaves a gap.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

The tool is simple with one fully described parameter and no output schema. The description sufficiently conveys the operation, though a brief mention of the expected return type would make it fully complete. Still, the low complexity makes the current description adequate.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the only parameter, including format and an example, so the description does not need to add more. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description adds no additional semantic value beyond the 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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('Can Chi') with a specific scope ('for a given solar date'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which handle lunar-solar conversions and lunar calendar days, leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 when a Can Chi value is needed for a solar date, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives. Sibling tools are available but not referenced. The usage context is inferred rather than directly stated.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('get') but does not describe return format, pagination, date range constraints, or any potential side effects. Given the ambiguity around 'lunar days', the agent cannot anticipate what the output will look like or how to interpret the results. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured annotations.

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 a single sentence with no superfluous words, which is concise. However, it is so terse that it borders on under-specification. While every word earns its place, the description misses the opportunity to provide valuable context without becoming verbose. Appropriate length would include a hint about the return type or intended use.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'lunar days' means, what the returned data represents, or how it differs from sibling tools. The schema covers parameters fully, but the absence of any behavioral or output context leaves significant ambiguity for an agent deciding whether to invoke this tool.

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 both solar_year and solar_month having clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not elevate understanding. The phrase 'given solar month' aligns with the parameters, but it does not clarify their relationships or formats beyond the 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 'Get lunar days for a given solar month' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (lunar days) with a scoping condition (solar month). It distinguishes from sibling tools like convert_date_lunar2solar and get_lunar_vegetarian_days by indicating month-level retrieval of lunar day information. However, 'lunar days' is somewhat ambiguous—whether it means a list of days in the lunar month or mappings for each solar day—so it is not perfectly clear.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this tool is for month-level queries while conversion tools handle specific dates, nor does it exclude cases where lunar vegetarian days might be the intended query. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, potential side effects, error conditions, or the format of the returned data. The word 'Get' hints at a non-mutating lookup, but this is not explicit, and no further behavioral context is given.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and resource with no extraneous words. It is appropriately concise for a tool of this simplicity and earns every word.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, but the description provides only a minimal statement. It does not explain what 'lunar vegetarian days' are, how the optional day affects results, what the return value looks like, or any edge cases. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly use the tool, especially given the lack of output schema.

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 input schema fully describes all 4 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the high-level summary of 'solar date' and 'calendar type', but it does not introduce any new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, nor does it clarify the optional solar_day parameter's behavior.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('lunar vegetarian days'), which is a specific and distinct functionality compared to sibling tools like date conversion or canchi. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from get_lunar_days_for_month, so it falls short of a full 5.

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 gives context by specifying inputs ('for a given solar date and calendar type') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or include any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than directly guided.

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