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

The description claims a read operation ('可读取') and explicitly notes that the original request snapshot remains unchanged, implying read-only behavior. However, the annotation readOnlyHint=false contradicts this, as it suggests the operation might have side effects. This is a clear contradiction, making the behavioral expectations inconsistent and confusing for the agent. No other behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and key constraint. There is no redundancy or filler; every word adds value. It effectively communicates the core function and scope without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the low schema coverage (0%), no output schema, and a single required parameter, the description should compensate by explaining the parameter and the return format. It mentions what data is returned (versions, suggestions, reasons, history) but does not describe the structure or how 'requestId' is identified. The read-only nature is unclear due to the annotation contradiction, and no details about authentication or response formatting are provided. The description is too sparse for an agent to invoke correctly without additional assumptions.

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?

The schema has a single required parameter 'requestId' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not explain what 'requestId' represents or how it should be provided. With no parameter-level detail, the description fails to add any meaning beyond the bare schema, leaving the agent to guess the parameter's role.

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 a specific verb and resource: it reads independent working versions, modification suggestions, handling reasons, and confirmation history. This is distinct from sibling tools like get_cooperation_plan or get_cooperation_analysis, and it sets a clear scope (only both cooperation parties). The purpose is unambiguous and well differentiated.

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 conveys an access constraint ('仅合作双方可读取' – only both parties can read) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_cooperation_plan or get_cooperation_analysis. It implies it is for accessing negotiation and version history, but no when/when-not guidance or alternative names are given, leaving selection to inference.

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