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 the tool's behavior: evaluating dates using 'traditional Chinese calendar methods' and returning 'top favorable dates ranked by their auspiciousness score.' However, it lacks details on potential limitations, error handling, or performance characteristics like rate limits or computational intensity.

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 are front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds context and method, and the third provides usage guidance and a feature. There is no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains the purpose and usage but lacks details on output format (e.g., structure of returned dates), error cases, or deeper behavioral traits. Without annotations or output schema, more context on what the tool returns would improve completeness.

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. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'date range' and 'activity' but not elaborating on their semantics. It does note the ranking and limit functionality, which aligns with the 'limit' parameter, but doesn't provide additional context like valid activity types or cultural options.

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: 'Searches through a specified date range to identify the most auspicious dates for a particular activity.' It specifies the verb ('searches'), resource ('dates'), and method ('using traditional Chinese calendar methods'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'check_auspicious_date' (single date) or 'batch_check_dates' (multiple dates without ranking).

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: 'Ideal for planning important events like weddings, business openings, or travel.' It implies usage for ranking multiple dates over a range, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as 'check_auspicious_date' for single dates.

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