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 describes what the tool returns (lunar year, month, day, leap month info, plus cultural elements for Chinese calendar) which is helpful, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling, date range limitations, performance characteristics, or authentication requirements.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first explains the core conversion and return values, the second provides usage context. Every sentence adds value with no redundant information, making it appropriately sized and 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (date conversion with cultural variations) and no output schema, the description does a good job explaining what the tool returns. However, it could be more complete by mentioning potential limitations (e.g., date ranges supported) or error cases, especially since there are no annotations to provide this context.

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 completely. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (like explaining cultural options beyond 'chinese' or date format nuances), so it meets the baseline of 3 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 specific verbs ('converts', 'returns') and resources (Gregorian dates to lunar dates). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'lunar_to_solar' by specifying the direction of conversion and includes unique cultural elements like zodiac animals and heavenly stems for Chinese calendar.

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 finding lunar dates for traditional festivals, birth dates, or cultural events'), but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'lunar_to_solar' for reverse conversions or other date-related tools in the sibling list.

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