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

Annotations already establish the operation is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by scoping visibility to own or public ready plans and clarifying that private received proposals are not read here, but through a snapshot elsewhere.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The primary behavior is stated first, and the sibling-tool routing is given in the second sentence without unnecessary detail.

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 single-parameter get-by-id tool with read-only annotations, the description is reasonably complete: it defines scope, visibility, status readiness, and offers an alternative for private proposals. It does not explain error cases or return format, but no output schema exists and these are not critical for invocation.

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%, and the description does not explain the id parameter beyond what the schema shows. For a single parameter this is not catastrophic, but the description adds no guidance about where the id comes from, what it identifies, or any format expectations.

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 clearly states that this tool reads one's own or public ready cooperation plans, using a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly differentiates itself from get_cooperation_request by noting that already-received private proposals should be read there instead.

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 gives explicit usage context: use for own or public ready plans. It also names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it, saying already-received private proposals should be read via get_cooperation_request's sent snapshot.

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