Lunar Calendar MCP Server

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 well describing the core functionality (batch processing, scoring, highlighting extremes) and capacity limits (up to 30 dates). However, it doesn't mention error handling, performance characteristics, authentication requirements, or rate limits - important behavioral aspects for a bulk processing tool.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences that each add value. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, followed by capacity details, and concludes with usage scenarios. While efficient, the third sentence could be slightly more concise by combining the three usage scenarios more tightly.

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 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, but no annotations or output schema, the description provides good purpose and usage context but lacks details about return format, error conditions, and behavioral constraints. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally explain what 'scores and levels' means, but it doesn't provide this detail.

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 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add significant parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'dates' and 'activity' but doesn't elaborate on valid activity types, cultural traditions beyond the default, or date format requirements. The schema already documents these parameters adequately.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('analyzes multiple dates', 'processes up to 30 dates', 'returning scores and levels', 'identifies and highlights best and worst dates') and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing bulk analysis capabilities. It explicitly contrasts with single-date tools like 'check_auspicious_date' through its batch processing nature.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'perfect for quickly evaluating several potential dates for an event, comparing options across a non-continuous date range, or conducting comparative analysis of multiple candidates.' This clearly differentiates it from single-date checking tools and suggests it's the appropriate choice for multi-date scenarios.

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