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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavior: the share is revocable and time-limited, the private plan stays private, and link holders can read content and express interest after phone verification. This gives the agent a clear picture of side effects.

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?

Three short sentences, each adding distinct value: the creation condition, the privacy guarantee, and the reader-side behavior. The description is dense but contains no filler and is front-loaded with the critical usage gate.

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?

Covers the decision condition, expiry, privacy, and reader behavior, which is strong for a tool with only two simple parameters. It falls slightly short because there is no output schema and the description does not state what the tool returns, such as a share link or share ID, nor does it clarify what 'frozen' means.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify expiresInDays with range and default, and planId is strongly implied by the cooperation-plan context. However, planId itself is never explicitly described, so the description only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

States exactly what it creates: a read-only, revocable, expiring share link for a cooperation plan. It also distinguishes this from making the private plan public, making the tool's scope and boundary clear.

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?

Explicitly says to create the share only when the user explicitly requests a public link, and reminds the agent to confirm content suitability before creating. It does not name alternative sibling tools such as preview_cooperation_share or revoke_cooperation_share, so it stops short of full when-not/alternatives guidance.

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