Lunar Calendar MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool returns a chronologically ordered list with specific data fields (dates, names, descriptions). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with invalid inputs, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 perfectly structured with three sentences that each earn their place: first states the core function, second details the return format, third provides usage scenarios. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and contains zero wasted words.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is quite complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it. The main gap is the lack of output format details beyond 'chronologically ordered list', but for a tool without output schema, this is reasonably comprehensive.

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 both parameters adequately. The description adds marginal value by implying the 'culture' parameter affects which 'cultural celebrations' are included, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema states.

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 ('generates', 'returns') and resources ('complete calendar of all traditional festivals for an entire year'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_lunar_festivals' by emphasizing comprehensive annual coverage and including both solar/lunar dates.

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 ('creating cultural event calendars, planning year-round celebrations, understanding annual rhythm'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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