Lunar Calendar MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: returns multiple dimensions (auspiciousness, moon phase, festivals, zodiac), handles up to 10 dates, provides recommendations if activity specified, and outputs in organized comparative format. However, it lacks details on error handling, performance limits (beyond date count), or authentication needs, leaving some gaps for a tool with complex functionality.

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?

Well-structured and front-loaded: first sentence defines core purpose, followed by specifics on outputs and usage. Every sentence adds value (e.g., dimensions, format, decision-making). Slightly verbose but efficient overall, with no redundant information.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates moderately by detailing return dimensions and format. However, for a tool with 3 parameters and complex comparative analysis, it lacks explicit error cases, output structure details, or examples, making it somewhat incomplete for full agent understanding without trial.

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 parameters (dates, activity, culture). The description adds some context by mentioning 'activity specified' influences auspiciousness analysis and recommendations, and implies cultural relevance, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 performs 'comprehensive side-by-side comparison of multiple dates' with specific dimensions (auspiciousness analysis, moon phase details, festivals, zodiac information) and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing comparative format and decision-making, unlike tools like 'check_auspicious_date' or 'get_zodiac_info' which focus on single aspects.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Ideal for final decision-making between several good options,' and implies when not to use (e.g., for single-date checks or non-comparative tasks). It differentiates from siblings by specifying 'multiple dates (up to 10)' and comparative analysis, guiding users away from tools like 'check_auspicious_date' or 'get_zodiac_info' that handle individual dates.

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