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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it returns only titles, counts only the current page, sets truncated=true when more rows remain, treats SHARE_INTEREST as a non-proposal, never creates a workspace, scrubs data for blocked/unavailable peers, and handles relayed secretarial requests. This far exceeds what the annotations alone convey.

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?

Although long, the text is tightly organized with labeled sections (需要登录 / 何时用 / 组合链 / 口径), front-loads the login and use-case, and every sentence adds operational detail. The length is justified by the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return behavior; it covers titles-only, counts, truncation, requestKind edge cases, workspace absence, peer unavailability, and relay status. It also covers the login prerequisite and routes related follow-ups, making it complete for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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 100% schema description coverage and clear per-parameter descriptions (limit, status, direction, peerUserId), the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description adds output-field behavior (counts, truncated, workspace, relay) rather than parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with concrete user intents ('有哪些合作在谈 / 谁在等我回 / 我发出去的有回音没') and names the resource (合作请求). It explicitly distinguishes this aggregate inbox from get_cooperation_request, get_cooperation_workspace, and get_my_work, so an agent can select it unambiguously.

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 when-to-use triggers, a full follow-up tool chain, and explicit exclusions: full text belongs to get_cooperation_request, member invitations to collaboration goals belong to get_my_work, and message context belongs to read_messages. This is explicit routing guidance with no ambiguity.

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