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

readOnlyHint=true is already in annotations, so safety is covered; the description adds an access-control precondition (target viewing permission still required), which is genuine extra context. It says nothing about what is returned, whether missing permission errors or returns empty, or whether the analysis is a snapshot or live.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, but it is front-loaded with an access constraint instead of the operation, and its grammar ('只有分析本人…可以读取') is ambiguous enough to require re-reading.

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 read tool with no output schema and zero schema coverage, the description should at minimum identify the `id` argument and what the analysis payload is. It supplies neither, so an agent cannot confidently construct a call or interpret the result from the definition alone.

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 explain the single `id` parameter, and it does not. Only obliquely, via '目标查看权限', is it hinted that `id` refers to the target whose permission is checked — leaving ambiguous whether it is the analysis id, the target user id, or a cooperation id.

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 is a permission clause ('only self analysis with remaining target-view permission can be read') rather than a statement of what the tool returns. The actual purpose ('read my private cooperation analysis') has to be recovered from the title, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings such as analyze_cooperation, get_cooperation_plan, or get_cooperation_workspace.

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 does convey an implied usage condition — the caller must be analyzing themselves and must still hold target viewing permission — which is more than nothing. It never names an alternative tool or says what to call when the condition fails (e.g. when the caller lacks permission or wants someone else's analysis).

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