render_secondary_progressions_chart

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds meaningful output behavior beyond that: the image is a 760px bi-wheel PNG with natal on the inside and progressed on the outside, which tells the agent what visually gets produced.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output format. No wasted language, and the visual layout detail is immediately useful.

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 render tool with no output schema, the description does explain the output medium and visual structure well. However, it leaves significant gaps around how the PNG is delivered, and with 11 undocumented parameters it relies almost entirely on the sibling tool for correct invocation.

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 0% for 11 parameters, so the description carries the full semantic burden. It only says 'Same inputs as calculate_secondary_progressions,' which is a cross-reference rather than an explanation, and it clarifies none of the individual fields such as age, as_of, fold, location_id, house_system, or angle_progression_method.

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 (render), resource (secondary progressions), output format (760px bi-wheel PNG), and visual layout (natal inside, progressed outside). It also distinguishes itself from calculate_secondary_progressions by emphasizing that the result is shown to the user.

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 phrase 'Same inputs as calculate_secondary_progressions' implies this is the display counterpart to the calculation tool, and 'shown to the user' hints at usage context. However, it never explicitly says when to call this versus calculate_secondary_progressions or what alternatives exist.

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