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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavior: requires authorization, executes a plan, is read-only, and makes no email or external writes. This goes beyond a simple 'run job' and adds meaningful constraints.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and primary purpose, then adds a critical constraint. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

Given the complexity (15 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description efficiently covers the purpose, key behavioral constraints, and the relationship to plan_harness_job. It does not detail return values, but no output schema exists, so the agent may need more. Still, it is strong for the context.

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 73%, and the description mentions the core parameter 'jobId' and the free-text 'prompt' parsing behavior. It does not explain every parameter, but given high coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It adds context about jobId and prompt that is not in the schema.

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 ('Authorize and execute'), a clear resource ('complete read-only analyst harness plan'), and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing it is the execution counterpart to plan_harness_job and read-only. It clearly differentiates from run_* and get_harness_job tools.

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?

It explicitly states when to use (after planning, optional jobId from plan_harness_job) but does not explicitly say when not to use or name alternatives like 'use get_harness_job to check status'. It gives context for authorization and mentions read-only nature, which helps route away from write tools.

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