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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the useful fact that leap months are detected and that the year's Chinese New Year is returned, plus the cost tier, but says nothing about the effect of the time/timezone inputs on the result.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the transformation and its outputs, followed by standardized group/cost tags. No filler; the only mild overhead is the bracketed metadata that is templated across the toolset.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. However, for a 7-parameter tool with 57% schema coverage and no usage guidance, the definition is only minimally adequate: an agent gets the 'what' but not the 'when' or the parameter implications.

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?

With only 57% schema description coverage and 7 parameters, the description compensates for almost nothing: it alludes to 'a Gregorian date' (the required param) but is silent on time, timezone, timezoneOffset, precision, fields, and language. The richest schema hints (timezone offset rules, precision) are left entirely to 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 states a specific verb+resource: it converts a Gregorian date into the Chinese lunar month/day and names two concrete outputs (leap-month detection and that year's Chinese New Year). That is enough to distinguish it from generic calendar siblings, but it never contrasts itself with the closely named astroway_calendar_lunar_calendar or nearby Chinese tools.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as astroway_calendar_lunar_calendar or astroway_chinese_solar_terms, which sit right next to it. The agent must infer applicability purely from the purpose sentence.

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