vedika_western_progressions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it names the zodiac convention (tropical), quantifies rates of motion so results can be sanity-checked, and discloses cost ($0.092/call). It omits error behavior and timezone handling, but those are covered by the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the technique name, then moves through motion rates, mode meanings, zodiac, and cost in tight sentences with zero padding. Every clause adds usable information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description's explanation of what 'chart', 'positions', and 'aspects' return is essential and present, as is cost. Minor gaps remain around timezone defaults and output size, but the core is complete enough to invoke correctly.

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 baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by adding interpretive meaning to the mode outputs and the planetary motion rates that let an agent judge whether a progressed position is plausible. The mode wording largely duplicates the enum description.

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 technique (secondary progressions, 'a day for a year') and resource, plus what the three output modes yield. It is clearly distinct from transit-style siblings by naming the technique, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with vedika_western_transits.

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?

Explains what each 'type' mode returns, which helps pick within the tool, but gives no guidance on when to use progressions versus transits or solar return, and no prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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