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 effectively describes the tool's behavior: it returns a comprehensive score (0-10), auspiciousness level, and detailed analysis including what the date is good for and what to avoid. This covers output format and analysis depth, though it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits or error conditions.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by specifics about the analysis methods and return values. Every sentence earns its place by adding value: the first defines the tool, the second details the output. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, analysis methods, and return values in detail. However, it lacks information on error handling or cultural scope limitations (e.g., only 'chinese' culture supported), which could be useful for an agent.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (date, activity, culture). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples for 'activity' beyond the schema's 'e.g., wedding, business_opening, travel.' Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Analyzes whether a specific date is favorable for particular activities based on traditional Chinese calendar principles.' It specifies the verb ('analyzes'), resource ('date'), and scope ('particular activities'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'batch_check_dates' (multiple dates) or 'find_good_dates' (searching rather than analyzing a specific date).

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 context by mentioning 'particular activities' and 'traditional Chinese calendar principles,' which suggests when to use it (for date analysis in this cultural context). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling tools (e.g., 'calculate_bazi' for different analysis).

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