Profections Detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 10-credit Tier 1 cost and the notion of 'full classical condition' (richness of the returned delineation), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about what that condition comprises or how the chart/lord is selected.

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?

A single substantive sentence, front-loaded with the core concept, followed by useful bracketed metadata (group, endpoint, cost). No redundancy, though the metadata block is boilerplate rather than explanatory.

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 input schema is fully described, so the basics are covered. What is missing is how 'full classical condition' is assembled (which dignities, sect, bonification factors) and how this differs from the plainer profections endpoint — the one thing an agent cannot recover from structured fields.

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 100% and the nested birth-data block is exhaustively documented (date/time formats, timezone handling, house-system letters). The description itself adds nothing about targetAge, which drives the whole profection year calculation, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 concrete output: the annual profection year-lord together with its full classical condition. Verb is implicit (compute/return) but the resource is specific and the 'Brennan tradition' tag situates it. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling astroway_prognostics_profections or astroway_hellenistic_brennan_time_lord_stack.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus the generic profections tool or the other Hellenistic time-lord endpoints. With dozens of overlapping Hellenistic and prognostics siblings, the absence of any routing guidance leaves the agent to guess.

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