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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds that each item has a summary and URL, but that overlaps with the output schema; it discloses nothing new about behavior such as ordering or localization handling.

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 compact sentence with zero filler, front-loading the resource and then what each entry contains. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 no explanation, and annotations cover safety; the description is nearly sufficient. The only gap is that it doesn't note the fixed six-module scope or how output is affected by the language parameter.

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 100% and the single optional 'lang' parameter has a documented enum, so the schema does the work. The description neither mentions the language parameter nor explains that the returned summaries/URLs follow it, adding no value beyond the schema — the 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 description names the resource (the six wellbeing modules) and enumerates them, plus says what each entry carries (one-line summary and URL). It is clear what a caller gets back, though the verb ('list') is only implied by the tool name, and the distinction from the sibling get_module is left implicit.

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 explicit 'use this when...' or named alternative, but the phrase 'one-line summary' implies an index/overview tool, which an agent can reasonably contrast with get_module for detail. The guidance is inferable rather than stated.

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