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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return content (e.g., energy, directions, colors) but lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence covers the tool's function and return details, while the second adds context about holistic analysis. There is minimal redundancy, though the second 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and return content but lacks behavioral and output details. It compensates partially by listing return elements (e.g., energy, directions), but for a tool with rich potential outputs, more completeness on behavior and response structure would be beneficial.

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 (date format, culture with default). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, as it does not explain parameter usage, constraints, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 ('Provides', 'Returns') and resources ('daily fortune analysis', 'traditional Chinese almanac'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on comprehensive daily analysis rather than specific calculations (e.g., calculate_bazi), date comparisons (compare_dates), or festival details (get_festival_details).

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 for holistic daily fortune analysis, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_auspicious_date (which might focus on specific activities) or get_lucky_hours (which targets time-specific insights). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity in tool selection.

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