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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, closed-world), so the description needn't restate safety. It adds the endpoint, the credit cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and the required-parameter flag, which are genuinely useful operational facts, but says nothing about what the computation returns or any constraints on the member set beyond 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?

Four short bracketed lines, purpose front-loaded, no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized, though the metadata-block style means very little substance is packed into that compact form.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a tool that takes 2–8 full natal charts and sits among four other family tools, the description omits what a 'system pattern' actually analyzes and how it differs from its family siblings, leaving a routing gap.

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 67% and the nested member schema is unusually rich, documenting date/time formats, timezone handling, and house-system letters in detail. The description contributes only '[Required: members]', which the schema already encodes in its required array, so it adds essentially no parameter meaning beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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 'System-level family astrological signatures' gestures at the tool's domain but names no specific computation or output. It does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like astroway_family_genogram, astroway_family_sibling_dynamics, or astroway_family_parent_child_deep, so an agent cannot tell which family endpoint to pick from the purpose alone.

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 description provides no when-to-use guidance and no exclusions or alternatives. '[Required: members]' and the cost line are preconditions, not usage routing, so the agent is left to infer the tool's role entirely.

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