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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial unrepeatable context: no access logging, no author notification, snapshot is frozen so later edits don't propagate, no contact info/references/attachments, and strict case-sensitive matching ('don't retry with a different case').

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 core action and heavily compressed into semicolon-separated clauses, with almost no filler. It is dense but every clause carries distinct behavioral information, so it earns its length despite being slightly terse.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers access behavior, snapshot semantics, exclusion rules, failure modes, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the pattern already documents the 43-char base64url format, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the case-sensitivity semantic and the fact that either a token or a share link resolves to the same resource, which the schema alone does not convey.

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?

States a precise verb+resource: anonymously reading the frozen plan snapshot addressed by a 43-char token or share link. It explicitly distinguishes itself from create_cooperation_share, redeem_cooperation_share, and send_cooperation_interest, so an agent can route without opening sibling 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?

Names two alternatives and the exact condition selecting each: use redeem_cooperation_share for record-keeping (writes a redemption record), use send_cooperation_interest (after authorization) to express interest. It also states rejection conditions (expired token or deactivated author).

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