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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond those annotations: only explicitly public and 'ready' plans are visible, and private drafts are excluded from public matching. This clarifies filtering semantics without contradicting the annotations.

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 concise sentences cover the main use case, the alternate scope, and the key exclusion. No filler or redundant restatement of the title or schema. Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and safety already covered by annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains ownership scope and the public-readiness constraint. It could mention the return shape or that omitting ownerId returns only the caller's plans, but the current text is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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%, so the description must carry the semantic weight for the single optional ownerId parameter. It does so implicitly: '自己的全部方案' maps to omitting ownerId, and '某位用户明确公开' maps to supplying an ownerId. It adds meaning about public/ready filtering, though it does not name the parameter explicitly or state optionality in parameter terms.

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 verb ('查看' / view) and resource ('合作方案' / cooperation plans), and clearly defines the scope: either the caller's own plans or another user's explicitly public and ready plans. This distinguishes it from singular get_cooperation_plan and from share-related siblings by emphasizing list scope and public-readiness filtering.

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 the tool: to view own plans or another user's public, ready plans. It also states an exclusion—private drafts are not used for public matching. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use get_cooperation_plan for a single plan', so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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