Genogram

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent, closed-world read, so the safety burden is not on the description. It does add two things annotations cannot: the exact endpoint and a specific cost of 10 credits (Tier 1), which is genuinely useful for planning. It says nothing about processing time or what the three charts are combined into.

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?

One topical sentence followed by four bracketed metadata lines; nothing is padded and the cost/endpoint facts are easy to scan. The structure is telegrammatic rather than explanatory, but it is front-loaded and wastes no words.

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 that takes three nested natal-chart objects and returns a multi-generational synthesis, the description conveys almost nothing about the analysis produced or how it differs from astroway_family_system_pattern. Output schema and annotations cover returns and safety, but the semantic gap around a costly (10-credit) composite tool remains significant.

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 coverage is 100% with rich nested birth-data descriptions (date/time format, timezone vs timezoneOffset precedence, houseSystem letters), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates that grandparent, parent and child are required, which is already enforced by the schema's required array — baseline 3.

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 domain and the three-generation scope, but supplies no verb and no inkling of what the map contains. Several siblings (astroway_family_parent_child_deep, astroway_family_system_pattern, astroway_family_sibling_dynamics) sit in the same family-astrology space and the description makes no attempt to separate this tool from them.

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 statement of when to choose a genogram over the other family tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only routing-adjacent information is the '[Group: Family Astrology]' tag and the required-parameter list, neither of which tells an agent why to pick this over a sibling.

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