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 what the tool returns (festival names, significance, customs, cultural importance), which is useful, but does not cover other behavioral aspects such as error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. The information provided is adequate but lacks depth for a tool with no annotations.

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 first sentence stating the core purpose clearly. Subsequent sentences provide necessary examples and return details without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient and well-structured.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job of explaining what the tool does and returns. However, it could be more complete by addressing potential limitations or behavioral traits. It covers the essentials but leaves some gaps in full contextual 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 both parameters fully. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides for the parameters. It mentions Chinese culture as an example but does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('traditional festivals and cultural celebrations'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it operates on a specific date rather than annual or batch processing. It explicitly lists examples of festivals it covers, making its scope unambiguous.

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 (for festivals on a specific date) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings. It implies usage for date-specific festival retrieval, which is helpful but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to tools like 'get_annual_festivals' or 'get_next_festival'.

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