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

Annotations already declare it read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: login required, counts are per-batch and truncated means incomplete, SHARE_INTEREST is not a proposal invitation, workspace=null means negotiation not started, and peerUnavailable reflects privacy redaction that must not be guessed at. These are non-obvious output semantics the agent cannot get from 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?

Front-loaded with the login requirement and the core title-only scope, then routing, then semantics. Every clause carries information, but the semicolon-dense single block is harder to parse than it needs to be.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: batch counts, truncation, SHARE_INTEREST typing, workspace=null, peerUnavailable redaction, and relay statusText handling. Sufficient for an agent to interpret results and route correctly.

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 100%, so limit/status/direction/peerUserId are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or format guidance beyond that.

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 this is the cooperation send/receive to-do inbox and explicitly flags it as title-only, distinguishing it from the full-text sibling get_cooperation_request. The listing verb is implied through 「待办」 rather than stated outright, but the resource and scope are clear enough for an agent to identify it.

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?

It gives explicit routing for every adjacent action: full text -> get_cooperation_request, respond -> respond_cooperation_request, negotiate -> get_cooperation_workspace, target-member invitations -> get_my_work, contact exchange -> list_connection_requests. When-to-use-this-vs-alternatives is fully spelled out.

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