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 what the tool does (analyzes and scores time periods) and the return format (detailed information including Chinese name, zodiac animal, etc.), but lacks critical behavioral details such as whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or how it handles errors. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence. Subsequent sentences add useful details about analysis, return values, and usage context without redundancy. However, it could be slightly more concise by integrating some details more tightly.

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 partially compensates by explaining the return format (e.g., 'detailed information for each time period including its Chinese name, zodiac animal, auspiciousness score, suitable activities, and recommendations'). However, it lacks completeness for a tool with no structured behavioral data, such as error handling or performance characteristics, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 three parameters (date, activity, culture). The description adds some context by mentioning 'traditional Chinese time divisions' and 'activity-specific suitability,' which aligns with the 'culture' and 'activity' parameters, but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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: 'Identifies the most auspicious hours within a specific day based on traditional Chinese time divisions.' It specifies the verb ('identifies'), resource ('auspicious hours'), and scope ('within a specific day'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'check_auspicious_date' (which focuses on dates rather than hours) or 'get_daily_fortune' (which is more general).

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: 'Perfect for timing important activities, meetings, ceremonies, or decisions within a chosen date for maximum favorable energy.' It implies usage for specific timing needs but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as 'check_auspicious_date' for date-level analysis.

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