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

Annotations say readOnlyHint=false, and the description explains exactly what that write actually is: a private install note, owner notified once, nothing public, and nothing recorded when no key is supplied. It also states nothing is modified locally ('you read the files and apply them yourself') and warns that all returned text is untrusted third-party content, which is behavior no annotation field conveys.

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?

Front-loaded with the payoff (whole setup in one call) and the return shape, then branches into side effects and safety. It is dense but nearly every clause carries information; the canonical-host/older-addresses sentence is the one piece that could be trimmed.

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, and the description fully compensates by describing the return payload (per-file content or ordered patches, curator notes, source post). Combined with the side-effect, safety, and address-format coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by spelling out the @owner/key address grammar and by giving the 'key' parameter real semantics — optional if a Bearer header is already sent, and its privacy consequences on the record. Only minor detail (e.g. key format fk_...) is left to 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?

Specific verb and resource: retrieves an entire harness (curated bundle of files with content or ordered patches) in one call, and it defines what a harness is plus its address format. It is clear against get_post/install_post in substance, though it never names the sibling that fetches a single post, so the contrast is inferred rather than stated.

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 gives practical invocation context — address shape (@owner/key) and where to find valid addresses (the harness page and the fork.zone/harnesses directory) — and explains the with-key vs without-key branch. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over install_post or add_to_harness, so selection guidance is only implied.

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