Tertiary Progressions

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's addition of 'day-for-a-lunar-month' and 'converse' adds some behavioral context. However, no details on error handling, edge cases, or computational cost beyond the credit label.

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?

Description is concise with two main sentences, group/cost metadata, and a helpful example. No unnecessary information, though the example is lengthy but valuable.

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?

Given the complexity of tertiary progressions and the large sibling tool set, the description lacks context about what the output contains, how it differs from similar tools, and any prerequisites (e.g., valid birth data). Annotations cover safety but not completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description includes an example that maps to the schema, but does not explain parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. 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?

Description clearly states the tool calculates tertiary progressions using a day-for-a-lunar-month mapping and supports converse direction. The verb 'Calculate' and the specific resource 'tertiary progressions' make the purpose clear, though it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'progressions' or 'minor_progressions'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., primary or minor progressions). The description only mentions converse direction support but lacks context on prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions.

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