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 mentions accuracy in handling leap months and includes validation for proper lunar date formats, which adds useful context beyond basic conversion. However, it lacks details on error handling, performance characteristics, or rate limits that would be helpful for an agent.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with four sentences that efficiently convey purpose, accuracy, use cases, and validation. Each sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (date conversion with cultural variations), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job covering the core functionality and use cases. However, it could be more complete by mentioning the return format (e.g., solar date in a specific format) or error scenarios, which would help an agent handle responses better.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the tool handles date conversion and validation, but does not provide additional syntax, format details, or cultural tradition nuances beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 ('converts') and resource ('traditional lunar calendar dates to Gregorian (solar) calendar dates'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'solar_to_lunar' which performs the inverse conversion. It explicitly mentions handling leap months and providing exact solar date equivalents.

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, listing specific use cases such as determining lunar-based festivals on the solar calendar, converting lunar birth dates, or scheduling events based on lunar information. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'solar_to_lunar' for reverse conversions.

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