cn402_lunar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the tool is paid (price unknown, auto-paid in USDC), which is useful, but it does not discuss idempotency, error handling, rate limits, authentication, or side effects. The description focuses on output content rather than behavioral 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 begins with a long, cluttered list of synonyms and keywords separated by slashes, which is not concise or well-structured. The core explanation is embedded within this noise. The price note at the end adds extraneous information. It lacks clear sectioning or front-loading of the most critical information.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate context about the conversion purpose and output fields. However, it fails to specify the output format (e.g., JSON structure) and does not include an example response. The price note is somewhat irrelevant for usage. Completeness is moderate.

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?

The input schema includes one optional parameter (date) with full description (format, optional, default today). The description adds that it converts any Gregorian date, which slightly reinforces the parameter's purpose but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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's function: converting Gregorian dates to Chinese lunar dates with full traditional context. It lists specific output fields (lunar year-month-day, gan-zhi pillars, zodiac animal, leap month flag) and provides multiple synonyms in Chinese and English, making it unambiguous among sibling tools like cn402_solar or cn402_almanac.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. With many sibling tools in similar domains, explicit usage directives are missing, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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