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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds real value: it discloses a permission boundary (only sender and receiver may read) and explains that cloud-user requests carry an extra relay.statusText visible only to the initiator, null otherwise. That is genuine behavioral context about access and conditional field presence. It still omits error behavior for unauthorized callers or what happens with an unknown id.

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 tight sentences with no filler, and the core purpose plus access rule lead. The second sentence dives into relay/statusText detail that borders on over-specific for a tool description, but it is genuinely useful information that is not captured anywhere else.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so reasonably: it names latest status, the plan snapshot at send time, and the conditional relay object. The main gap is input-side — nothing about the id's source or authorization failure modes. For a one-parameter read tool this is close to complete.

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 single required parameter 'id' is never mentioned in the description — no statement that it is the cooperation request id, or where to obtain it. The description does not compensate for the schema gap at all. The only mitigating factor is that a single 'id' on a get_* tool is largely self-evident.

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+resource (查看合作请求) plus what is returned: 最新状态及发送时的方案快照. An agent can tell this is a single-request detail read rather than a list or a respond action. It never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like list_my_cooperation_requests or respond_cooperation_request, so it stops short of a 5.

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 never says when to call this versus list_my_cooperation_requests (to find an id) or respond_cooperation_request (to act on it), nor any prerequisite flow. The access rule '仅发送方和接收方可查看' is an authorization constraint, not usage guidance. An agent must infer the workflow entirely.

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