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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuinely useful metadata not present in structured fields: the 10-credit Tier 1 cost and the Family Astrology grouping. Beyond cost, it discloses nothing about what the analysis returns or requires.

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 lines that are short because they are under-specified rather than economical. Bracket tags are present but the core sentence is too thin to guide a call.

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?

Despite an output schema and full annotations, a multi-member relational astrology tool surrounded by nine family siblings needs more than a noun phrase. The description leaves the agent unable to know what a "family system pattern" computes or when to prefer it over the other family tools.

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?

The schema is richly annotated (67% coverage), especially the nested member birth-data object. The description contributes nothing to parameter meaning, not even that members is a 2-8 chart array or what role values do, so it fails to compensate for the uncovered third.

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?

"System-level family astrological signatures" largely restates the title (Family System Pattern) without a verb or concrete output. It never distinguishes itself from the nine sibling family tools (genogram, parent_child_deep, sibling_dynamics, saturn_return_cycles), so an agent cannot tell what unique computation this performs.

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 exclusions, and no named alternative. With so many overlapping Family Astrology siblings, the total absence of routing guidance leaves the agent to guess.

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