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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact not in the annotations: the 10-credit Tier 1 cost. However it says nothing about what the computed genogram contains or how the three generation datasets interact.

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 terse lines with metadata brackets. It is front-loaded and waste-free, but six substantive words is under-specification for a tool requiring three nested birth-data objects, not true conciseness.

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 tool with three required nested objects, an output schema, and several near-identical family siblings, the description omits what the genogram analysis returns and what distinguishes it from the other family pattern tools. An agent could call it correctly from the schema alone but cannot judge relevance.

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 the nested birth-data schemas are exceptionally detailed, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, but it also does not need to.

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 phrase 'Multi-generational family pattern map' names the artifact produced but contains no verb and does not differentiate from close siblings such as astroway_family_system_pattern or astroway_family_parent_child_deep. An agent can guess it builds a genogram, but must infer that from the tool name rather than the description.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. The only context is a group tag and a credit cost, which tells the agent nothing about selecting this tool over the other family-astrology siblings.

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