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 function (analysis based on traditional beliefs) and output (recommendations with explanations), which is adequate. However, it lacks details on potential limitations (e.g., subjectivity of beliefs, error handling) or performance traits (e.g., response format, computational cost). The description does not contradict any annotations, as none are given.

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, starting with the core purpose. It uses two sentences efficiently: the first defines the tool's function, and the second elaborates on output. There is minimal waste, though the second sentence could be slightly more concise by merging clauses.

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 reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, usage context, and output behavior. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the return format (e.g., structure of recommendations). The description compensates well but has a minor gap in output specification.

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' and 'activity') with basic descriptions. The description adds some context by implying the activity should be analyzed for lunar influence, but it does not provide additional semantic details beyond what the schema states (e.g., examples of activity types, date range constraints). This meets 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: analyzing how the moon's phase on a specific date influences activities based on traditional beliefs and lunar wisdom. It specifies the verb 'analyzes' and resource 'moon's phase' with scope 'various activities', distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_moon_phase' (which likely just returns phase data) and 'get_moon_calendar' (which may provide broader calendar info).

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 analyzing lunar influence on activities based on traditional beliefs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings (e.g., 'get_moon_phase' for raw phase data or 'check_auspicious_date' for date selection). The guidance is implied but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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