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. It discloses that the tool retrieves information (read operation) and specifies the scope of returned data (zodiac animal, element, personality traits, etc.). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like date range constraints, error conditions, or response format details.

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 efficiently convey the tool's purpose and scope. The first sentence establishes the core functionality, while the second elaborates on the specific information returned. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more front-loaded.

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?

For a read-only tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description provides adequate context about what information is returned. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail about the response structure. The description covers the essential behavioral aspects given the tool's complexity.

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 thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the 'culture' parameter defaults to Chinese zodiac, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter interactions or usage nuances.

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 verb 'retrieves' and resource 'zodiac information', specifying it's for a specific date. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on comprehensive zodiac details rather than compatibility calculations, date conversions, or festival information.

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 context by specifying 'for a specific date' and mentioning Chinese zodiac details, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_zodiac_compatibility' or 'get_daily_fortune'. It provides clear cultural context but lacks explicit alternative guidance.

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