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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value beyond that by specifying that the plaintext token will not be re-returned and that view counts exclude crawlers and the author, giving the agent important behavioral expectations about the response without contradicting 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?

The description is a compact two-sentence statement with no filler. The primary purpose and data points are front-loaded, and the token exclusion is stated in a secondary sentence. Every word 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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential data (viewCount/lastViewedAt, exclusion criteria) and explicitly notes what is not returned. It does not describe response structure or pagination, but given the tool's simplicity and the annotations, this is 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by implicitly clarifying that planId refers to the author's own plan ('自己方案'), adding a semantic constraint (ownership) not present in the schema. It does not explicitly describe the parameter format, but the single parameter is self-explanatory and the context is clear.

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 the specific verb 'view' and resource 'sharing records of the author's own plan', enumerating the exact data points (validity period, revocation status, view counts) and explicitly excluding crawlers and the author. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_cooperation_share or revoke_cooperation_share without needing to inspect their schemas.

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 provides clear context: this is for viewing share records of one's own plan. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like get_cooperation_share_access or preview_cooperation_share, but the purpose is unambiguous enough that an agent would not confuse it with creation/revocation actions. Lacks explicit exclusions but context is sufficient.

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