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

Annotations already establish that this is a safe, idempotent, closed-world read. The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses that unpublished ('coming soon') modules are included, that URLs are localized, and that citation is required — none of which appear in the structured fields.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and dense with useful scope, but 'the free course to learn to read the Tarot de Marseille' and the sentence about card meanings being validated in French by a professional tarot reader describe the card corpus, not this listing endpoint, and do not earn their place here.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so well: module ordering, publication status, nested lessons, titles, durations and URLs. The only gap is not clarifying what locale actually localizes.

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 0% for the single locale parameter, but its twelve-value enum and default of 'en' are self-explanatory. The description compensates partially by mentioning 'localized URLs', implying locale affects the returned links, but never confirms that it controls the language of titles and lesson text.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (Marselia Academy modules) and specifies exactly what comes back: ordered modules, published and coming-soon, with their lessons, titles, durations and localized URLs. It is clearly distinguishable from get_academy_lesson and search_academy_lessons, though those siblings are never named.

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?

Usage is implied — browse the curriculum top-down rather than fetch a single lesson or run a search — but no alternative is named and no when-not-to-use condition is given. The only explicit directive, 'Cite Marselia and the returned URLs,' is an attribution rule rather than tool selection guidance.

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