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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds real behavior beyond that — relevance ranking ('a card name ranks first the lesson that teaches it'), locale-dependent URLs, and the hub-URL fallback on empty results. It stops short of saying how many results are returned or what happens when limit truncates matches.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the parenthetical examples are doing real work by showing valid query shapes. Slightly dense with nested parentheses and mixed concerns (ranking, linking rules, fallback) crammed together, but nothing is filler.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description names the return fields (URL, module, duration, summary), the ordering semantics, and the empty-result behavior, which is exactly the information an agent needs to use the response correctly. The only gap, limit behavior, is minor for a search tool.

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%, so the description must carry the burden. It explains the query's accepted forms and implies locale controls the returned URL language, but says nothing about the limit parameter (1–10, default 5) — a caller cannot learn from the description how result count is controlled or what default 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?

States a specific verb plus resource (find Marselia Academy lessons) and enumerates the query forms it accepts (question, topic, card name, corpus id), which implicitly separates it from the sibling marselia_get_academy_lesson by-id retriever. It also declares the ranking ('best first') and the payload fields (URL, module, duration, summary), so an agent knows exactly what comes back.

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 context is clear: use it to answer a question/topic and get ranked lessons with the URL in the requested language, plus an explicit rule for the no-result case ('with no result, the hub URL') and a linking constraint ('never invented ones'). What's missing is any explicit steering away from alternatives such as marselia_list_academy_modules or marselia_get_academy_lesson.

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