Minor Progressions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value with cost (50 credits, Tier 3) and the converse-direction capability, but says nothing about what is returned or how the lunar month-for-a-year mapping is applied.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the technique and its rate of motion; the endpoint and credit tier are compact metadata. No filler, though the parenthetical would serve better as a contrast to sibling techniques.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the input schema is exhaustive. The remaining gap is disambiguation from the other progression/direction tools, which is the one thing neither schema nor description supplies.

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 schema fully documents date, time, coordinates, timezone and targetDate. The description mentions neither the birth-data requirement nor the targetDate/converse parameters, so it adds nothing beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and named astrological technique ('Calculate minor progressions (lunar month-for-a-year) to a target date') and adds the converse variant. It is distinguishable in principle, but it never contrasts itself with the close siblings astroway_prognostics_progressions and astroway_prognostics_tertiary_progressions, so an agent must know the technique names to choose correctly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use minor progressions rather than secondary, tertiary progressions or primary directions, and no prerequisites (it silently requires full natal birth data plus a targetDate). The only guidance given is that converse direction is supported.

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