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

Annotations only state idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it reads a frozen snapshot rather than live private data, and it will not send messages on the user's behalf — the two risks an agent would most want disclosed before redeeming a token. It stops short of stating permission/auth requirements.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the precondition, then states the read behavior and the two negative guarantees. No filler, and the most decision-relevant clause comes first.

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, non-destructive read with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the nature of the returned data (frozen plan), and the side-effect boundaries. It could still say more about what the frozen plan contains or what a failed/expired token yields, and readOnlyHint is not set despite this being a read.

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 token parameter is constrained only by a regex pattern. The description does clarify that the token comes from the user (rather than being generated or discovered by the agent), which is real added meaning, but it says nothing about format, expiry, or where to obtain it when the user merely mentions a share.

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 names a specific action (读取冻结方案 – read the frozen plan) and the precondition (user explicitly supplies a share token), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, contrast itself with close siblings such as preview_cooperation_share, get_cooperation_share_access, or get_cooperation_plan, so an agent cannot fully tell them apart from the text alone.

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?

"用户明确提供分享token后" gives a concrete trigger condition for invocation, and the sentence defines boundaries (no auto-messaging, no live private data of the original plan). What is missing is routing guidance: nothing says when to pick preview_cooperation_share or get_cooperation_share_access instead.

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