Secondary Progressions

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool returns progressed planets, angles, and aspects to natal. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful output context.

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 two sentences with key info, plus a group/cost line and an example. It is front-loaded and no unnecessary text.

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?

For a calculation tool with no output schema, the description explains the method and return contents. Cost and group are provided. It is sufficient for an agent to understand usage, though could mention that birth data and target date are required (already in schema).

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 schema includes descriptions for body properties. The tool description adds a concrete example request body, which helps understanding beyond the schema.

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 'Calculate secondary progressed chart (day-for-a-year) for a target date' and specifies outputs (planets, angles, aspects). It distinguishes from sibling tools like minor_progressions and tertiary_progressions by naming 'secondary' and the method.

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 implies usage for a target date but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternative progression tools (e.g., minor, tertiary). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance are provided.

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