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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds genuine value beyond that: an access/visibility model (only your own plans or publicly 'ready' ones are readable), which functions as an auth/eligibility constraint. It does not cover failure behaviour when a plan is not yet ready or the id is unknown, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, and the access-scope clause is front-loaded before the alternative-tool routing. Nothing repeats the title or the schema.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema to explain, the description supplies the two things an agent actually needs: what it may read and when to use the sibling instead. The one gap is provenance of the id argument, which the agent would have to infer.

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?

There is one required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the load. It implies the id is a plan identifier but never says where the id comes from (e.g., list_cooperation_plans) or what happens on an invalid id. For a single obvious identifier the implied meaning is adequate but not compensating for the coverage gap.

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 a specific verb (读取) plus the resource (方案) and narrows scope to '自己的或公开已就绪的' plans, which distinguishes it from list_cooperation_plans and get_cooperation_request. An agent can identify the resource and the eligibility condition without opening the schema.

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 routes the agent away from this tool for received private proposals and names get_cooperation_request as the alternative, which is the most likely confusion in this crowded cooperation family. It does not address other near-neighbours such as get_cooperation_workspace or get_cooperation_share_access, so it falls short of a complete routing rule.

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