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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., return format, error handling, auth requirements). It simply restates the purpose. Since annotations cover the main behavior, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource. Perfectly concise.

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 simple getter with one parameter and annotations covering read-only safety, the description is adequate. It states the core action but does not mention return value or potential errors, which are not covered by output schema (none exists). Given simplicity, this is complete enough, but could be marginally richer.

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 the parameter described as 'UUID of the harness'. The description's phrase 'by ID' adds no new meaning beyond the schema. It does not elaborate on format, requiredness, or behavior. 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 clearly states the action (get) and the resource (a specific harness by ID). It distinguishes from list_harnesses and search_harnesses by specifying 'specific... by ID', making it clear it retrieves one harness.

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?

The description implies usage when you have a harness ID, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like search_harnesses or list_harnesses. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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