Secondary Progressions

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the 50-credit (Tier 3) cost and the endpoint. It stops short of noting error behavior or whether targetDate must postdate the birth date.

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 plus bracketed metadata, front-loaded with the technique name and output list. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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, the description need not explain return values, and the schema handles the input contract. The remaining gap is choice guidance against three sibling progression/direction tools, but everything needed to call it correctly is covered.

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 body schema documents date, time, latitude, longitude, timezone and ayanamsa richly. The description adds nothing about parameters, notably never mentioning the required targetDate or the converse flag, so it stays at baseline.

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 ("Calculate") and a precisely named resource ("secondary progressed chart (day-for-a-year)"), then enumerates the outputs. Naming the "secondary" technique distinguishes it from siblings like astroway_prognostics_minor_progressions and tertiary_progressions without ambiguity.

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 only usage signal is "for a target date" and the cost tier; there is no statement of when to pick this over minor/tertiary progressions or primary directions, and no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must already know the difference between progression techniques to choose correctly.

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