convert_calendar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only calculation or has side effects, what happens with invalid dates, whether it handles historical/ future dates, or any rate limits. The description states what the tool does but not how it behaves.

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 extremely concise (just 4 Korean characters) and front-loaded with the core purpose. There's zero wasted text or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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?

For a 4-parameter conversion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (converted date format? success/failure?), doesn't address edge cases (invalid dates, calendar boundaries), and provides minimal guidance on parameter usage despite low schema coverage.

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 25% (only the 'date' parameter has a description), and the description adds no parameter information beyond the tool's general purpose. It doesn't explain the meaning of 'fromCalendar'/'toCalendar' enums beyond what's in the schema, nor does it clarify the purpose of 'isLeapMonth' or how parameters interact.

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 '양력↔음력 변환' (Solar↔Lunar conversion) clearly states the tool's function with specific verbs (convert/transform) and resources (calendar systems). It distinguishes this conversion tool from sibling tools like fortune-telling or compatibility analysis, though it doesn't explicitly mention what distinguishes it from potential similar conversion tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or how this differs from other calendar-related operations that might exist in the broader context.

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