Parent-Child Deep

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true (safe read) and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context, such as what 'deep' entails (e.g., comprehensive aspects, house overlays), potential computational intensity, or output characteristics. With annotations present, the description does not compensate for missing behavioral details.

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?

The description is very short (one clause plus group tag), which is concise but sacrifices informativeness. It is front-loaded with the main purpose but lacks sufficient detail to be truly helpful. It does not waste words, but it does not earn its place either.

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 nested parameters and likely complex output ('deep analysis'), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'deep' means, what specific aspects are analyzed, or what the return structure looks like (no output schema). The annotations provide safety but not depth. The description needs to be expanded for effective use.

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 detailed descriptions for both parent and child objects (required fields, defaults, formatting). The tool description itself adds no parameter-level information, but the schema already provides sufficient semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 description clearly states it is a 'Deep parent-child synastry analysis', specifying the tool's function and relationship domain. The group tag further contextualizes it within Family Astrology. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other parent-child or synastry tools among the extensive sibling list.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like synastry, family_sibling_dynamics, or other family tools. The description lacks any recommendation or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent without decision support.

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