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 describes what the tool returns (compatibility score, level, element analysis, insights) which is valuable, but doesn't mention computational complexity, potential rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description doesn't contradict any annotations since none exist.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds valuable context about what's compared, what's returned, and cultural applications. There's minimal redundancy, though the final sentence could be slightly more concise.

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 (compatibility analysis with cultural context) and no annotations or output schema, the description provides good purpose and usage context but lacks details about return format structure, error conditions, or computational behavior. It's adequate but has clear gaps for a tool with no structured output documentation.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline is 3 when schema does the heavy lifting, even though the description doesn't compensate with additional parameter context.

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 compatibility', 'compares the four pillars and elemental compositions') and resources ('BaZi charts', 'two people'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on compatibility analysis rather than individual chart calculation (calculate_bazi) or zodiac-based compatibility (check_zodiac_compatibility).

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('traditionally used for marriage compatibility, business partnerships, or understanding relationship dynamics in Chinese culture'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like check_zodiac_compatibility for different compatibility methods.

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