solar_to_lunar

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the output includes leap month info 'if applicable' and mentions Chinese calendar specifics. However, it does not disclose potential limitations like date range validity, error handling, or performance characteristics.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds distinct information: conversion, return fields, Chinese-specific fields, and use cases. No redundant or extraneous text.

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 has only 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description sufficiently explains input and output. It covers the return structure and typical use cases, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining that the 'culture' parameter defaults to 'chinese' and that for Chinese calendar additional zodiac and stem-branch info is returned. This goes beyond the schema's simple 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 converts Gregorian dates to lunar dates, listing returned fields including lunar year, month, day, leap month, and for Chinese calendar also zodiac and stem-branch. It distinguishes from sibling lunar_to_solar by its direction of conversion.

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 usage context: 'Essential for finding lunar dates for traditional festivals, birth dates, or cultural events.' It implies the tool is for conversion but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like lunar_to_solar or other calendar tools.

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