Minor Progressions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it calculates and supports converse direction, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, prerequisites, or return value nature. It does not contradict annotations.

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 short (two sentences plus group/cost tags and example) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The example is helpful but could be considered extraneous. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of progressed positions or aspects). It only describes the calculation input, not the output. This is a significant gap for a complex tool.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description provides an example request body that illustrates usage, adding minimal extra meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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 that the tool calculates minor progressions (lunar month-for-a-year) to a target date and supports converse direction. This is specific and distinct from the sibling tool 'progressions', though it does not explicitly differentiate. The verb 'calculate' and resource 'minor progressions' are clear.

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 mentions it supports converse direction and provides an example, but does not explain when to use this tool compared to siblings like 'progressions' or 'tertiary_progressions'. The group tag 'Prognostics' provides some context, but explicit when/why guidance is missing.

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