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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies which view metrics are returned, notes that crawlers and the author are excluded, and explicitly states that plaintext tokens are not returned again. It does not cover pagination or full authorization details, which keeps it from a 5.

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 with a focused parenthetical detailing returned metrics and exclusions. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no redundant filler.

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?

The tool is low-complexity, read-only, has no output schema, and takes one parameter. The description sufficiently explains the returned share metadata and the absence of plaintext tokens, but it omits planId semantics and pagination behavior. For this complexity level, it is mostly complete but not fully self-contained.

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%, and the single parameter planId has no schema-level explanation. The description only implies that the record belongs to "自己方案" and never defines what planId is, its accepted format, or how it selects the share records. This does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: the author views their own plan's share records, including validity period, revocation status, and page-open counts. It also clarifies what is excluded (crawlers, the author, plaintext token), which helps distinguish it from share creation, preview, and redemption tools. It does not explicitly name the closest sibling alternatives, so it is not a 5.

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 phrase "作者查看自己方案" implies the tool is for plan authors checking their own shares, giving some usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_cooperation_share_access or preview_cooperation_share, and no exclusions are stated.

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