Gregorian to Lunar Date

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's remaining burden is lighter. It usefully adds that leap-month detection is included and that 10 credits are charged, but it says nothing about how the time/timezone inputs can shift the lunar-day boundary — behaviorally relevant for this tool.

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?

One front-loaded sentence delivers the core behavior, and the bracketed metadata block is terse and scannable. No wasted prose, though the metadata lines are boilerplate rather than descriptive content.

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, so return values need not be explained, and the required parameter is flagged. What is missing is guidance on the date-boundary behavior (clock time and timezone affecting the lunar date), which is the main ambiguity for a 5-parameter date-conversion tool.

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 only 40%: timezone and timezoneOffset are documented in-schema, but date, time, and language carry only regex patterns. The description mentions only the required date and adds no semantics for time or timezone, which materially affect which lunar day is returned — a genuine gap the description should have closed.

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?

States a specific verb+resource pair: converts a Gregorian date into a Chinese lunar month/day, with leap-month detection and the year's Chinese New Year. An agent can grasp the operation immediately. However, it never distinguishes itself from plausible siblings such as astroway_calendar_lunar_calendar or astroway_chinese_tong_shu, which likely overlap.

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: the presence of a required 'date' and the conversion framing tell the agent this is a single-date lookup, and the cost line (10 credits, Tier 1) gives a cost/benefit cue. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no named alternative for the overlapping lunar-calendar siblings.

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