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

readOnlyHint already declares this as a safe read operation, and the description adds meaningful access-control behavior: other users' plans must be explicitly public and ready, and private drafts are excluded from public matching. It still omits pagination or ordering behavior, so it is strong but not complete.

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, front-loaded with the scope of what can be viewed. The second sentence about private drafts earns its place by preventing misuse, with no redundant repetition of schema or annotations.

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?

For a read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, access modes, and privacy restriction. Return shape and ordering remain implicit, but given the low complexity and absence of an output schema, the definition is largely sufficient.

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 0% schema description coverage, the single optional ownerId parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description compensates by implying its semantics—omit it to see all your own plans, supply it to see that user's public ready plans—but does not name the field, define ID format, or state behavior for invalid or private owners.

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 (查看) and resource (合作方案), and clearly divides scope into viewing all of one's own plans versus another user's public and ready plans. It does not explicitly name the single-plan sibling get_cooperation_plan, so single-versus-list routing still requires inference.

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 explains the two access modes: default to your own plans, or query another user's plans only when they are explicitly public and ready. It does not explicitly guide the agent toward alternatives such as get_cooperation_plan for a single plan or list_cooperation_shares for shares.

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