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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieve' signals a read-only operation and the description usefully identifies what data is returned (stage, elapsed time, activity, citations, discrepancies, follow-up drafts). However, it does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects, nor does it address authorization or relation to job lifecycle.

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, well-formed sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and enumerates the main return categories without wasted words. Every clause adds 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?

For a simple two-parameter read operation with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential return content and the resource's scope. It lacks explicit safety/annotation context, but the operation is simple enough that the overall picture is reasonably complete.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, with jobId described as returned from run_harness_job or plan_harness_job and workspaceId as the owning workspace. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and a specific resource ('durable progress... and the review center... for a harness job'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the harness-job sibling tools (run_harness_job, plan_harness_job, resume_harness_job, cancel_harness_job), though the retrieval verb differentiates it by implication.

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 this tool is for checking a job's current state after it has been created or planned, but it does not explicitly say when to use it over the sibling harness-job tools. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, so usage guidance is only inferred from the word 'Retrieve'.

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