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. It discloses the tool's behavior by specifying what it returns (festival name, date, days remaining, significance) and its purpose (finding the next festival). However, it does not mention potential limitations like date format constraints beyond the schema, error handling, or data sources, 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage context and return details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 mostly complete: it explains the purpose, usage, and return values. However, it could improve by addressing potential edge cases or linking to siblings for broader context, slightly reducing completeness.

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 'culture') with descriptions. The description does not add meaning beyond this, such as explaining how 'culture' affects results or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 specific action ('finds the next upcoming traditional festival') and resource ('festival'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_annual_festivals' or 'get_festival_details' by focusing on the next event after a reference date. It explicitly mentions the return data (name, date, days remaining, significance), which further clarifies its purpose.

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 ('useful for planning ahead and understanding which cultural celebration is approaching'), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings (e.g., 'get_annual_festivals' for multiple events). This gives good guidance but lacks exclusion details.

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