lunar_to_solarConvert Chinese lunar dates to corresponding Gregorian (solar) calendar dates. Provide the year, month, and day of a lunar date to receive the equivalent solar date for the period 1900–2100.
农历转公历，如农历 2026 年八月十五 → 公历日期（1900–2100）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| day | Yes | ||
| year | Yes | ||
| month | Yes | ||
| isLeapMonth | No | 是否闰月 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully narrows the schema's absurd year range (±9 quadrillion) down to 1900–2100, which is real behavioral value, but it says nothing about how invalid dates or out-of-range years are reported, nor what form the returned Gregorian date takes.
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?
Extremely compact: purpose, worked example and valid range in a single phrase, with nothing wasted. The brevity is close to under-specification, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
score 3. A simple four-parameter converter with no output schema needs little, and the example plus year range covers the essentials. Missing edge-case behavior (invalid lunar dates, leap-month handling) keeps it from being fully complete.
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 only 25% (only isLeapMonth is documented), so the description must compensate. The example clarifies that year/month/day are lunar year (1–12), lunar month and day-of-month, and the range note constrains year, but it doesn't explain leap-month numbering or how isLeapMonth interacts with month.
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 states a specific verb (conversion) and resource (lunar → Gregorian date) and gives a concrete example, so the direction of conversion is unambiguous. This inherently distinguishes it from solar_to_lunar, though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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 by the conversion direction and example; there is no explicit 'use this when' or any mention that solar_to_lunar is the inverse operation for the opposite direction. For a straightforward conversion tool this is adequate but leaves routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.