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

描述补充了访问控制条件（仅公开方案或本人有效分享授权），但未说明发送后的效果、副作用或失败情况。注解已有readOnlyHint=false表示非只读，描述无需重复，但未增加更多行为细节。

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?

描述共三句话，每句都有实质内容，无冗余，结构清晰，但未涉及参数解释，故非满分。

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?

工具有4个参数且无输出模式，描述未解释参数含义、返回结果或错误场景，仅提供了使用条件和部分参数关系，不足以让代理正确调用。

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描述覆盖率为0%，描述必须解释参数含义。描述仅提到planId/shareAccessId二选一，但未说明各自含义，note和expectedUpdatedAt完全未提及，参数语义严重不足。

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?

描述明确说明工具是发送合作意向，并指定了发送方和接收方，但未与兄弟工具如send_cooperation_request做明确区分，因此未达到5分。

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?

描述提供了明确的触发条件（用户明确指示）和限制条件（仅公开方案或本人授权、绝不替原作者发邀请），但未提及替代工具或何时使用其他发送类工具，故扣一分。

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