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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses access-control behavior, response contents, and a conditional relay field with initiator-only visibility and null otherwise. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs and would not get from annotations alone.

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 one dense, well-structured sentence: access restriction first, then response content, then conditional relay behavior. There is no fluff, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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, so the description correctly carries the return-value burden by naming the main response components and the conditional relay field. For a simple single-id read operation with safe annotations, nothing critical is missing.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0% and no parameter description, the single id parameter is not explicitly explained. The tool name and description make it inferable that id identifies the cooperation request, but the description adds no direct guidance on how to obtain it or what form it must take beyond the schema's length constraints.

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 states a specific action—viewing the latest status and proposal snapshot of a cooperation request—and clearly identifies the resource. It also distinguishes itself from related tools by focusing on a single request's current state and sent-time snapshot, with an explicit sender/receiver access restriction.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to inspect a cooperation request's latest status and snapshot, with an explicit access constraint. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, such as when to use get_cooperation_plan or list_my_cooperation_requests, so it stops short of a 5.

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