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

Annotations already establish idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful context beyond that: it discloses the authorization scope (only the two cooperating parties) and clarifies that the original request snapshot is not altered. It does not describe pagination or return structure, but the access and immutability details are substantive.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the access restriction and then lists the readable record types. There is no filler, though the density leaves the required parameter entirely unaddressed.

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 and 0% parameter description coverage, the description must carry more weight than it does. It names the content categories but omits the meaning of requestId and gives no sense of the response structure or whether multiple versions are returned.

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 tool has one required parameter, requestId, with 0% schema description coverage, yet the description never mentions it or explains what kind of request ID is expected. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this is a cooperation request ID, a version ID, or another identifier.

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 read operation over a cooperation workspace and enumerates the record types returned: working versions, modification suggestions, handling reasons, and confirmation history. It also contrasts this with the unchanged original request snapshot, which helps distinguish it from request-snapshot tools, though it does not name the sibling get_cooperation_request explicitly.

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 only guidance is an access prerequisite: '仅合作双方可读取' (only the two cooperating parties may read). There is no statement of when to choose this tool over get_cooperation_request, get_cooperation_plan, or get_cooperation_analysis, and no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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