datetime.lunar_to_solar

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so the description correctly focuses on the failure surface instead: nonexistent leap months, day lengths exceeding the actual month, and unsupported years all raise errors rather than silently clamping. That is genuinely useful behavior no annotation conveys.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the transformation and output format, then parameter constraints, then error semantics. Every clause adds information; there is no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists and the description still names the output format, annotations cover the safety profile, and all four parameters plus failure modes are addressed — enough for correct invocation. It stops short of noting the calendar system assumed or cross-referencing datetime.solar_to_lunar/datetime.lunar_holiday for related tasks.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it bounds lunar_month to 1–12 and lunar_day to 1–30, states lunar_year is restricted to a supported year window, and explains is_leap must be True only for an actual leap month. The only gap is that is_leap's default (false) behavior is left implicit.

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 uses a specific verb and resource (음력 날짜를 양력으로 변환) and names the output format solar_date(YYYY-MM-DD), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It is clearly the inverse of the sibling datetime.solar_to_lunar, which an agent can infer from the direction stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: it tells you the tool converts lunar input, so the agent must infer to use datetime.solar_to_lunar for the opposite direction. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use routing statement, though the error conditions (nonexistent leap month, out-of-range day, unsupported year) do implicitly define invalid invocations.

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