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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that it returns a route (not a transaction), is deterministic, and returns unroutable:true when no platform serves the intent, which goes beyond the annotations. It also describes the return structure, adding transparency without contradicting 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?

The description is detailed but somewhat long; however, it is well-structured with a clear explanation, examples, behavioral notes, and return structure. Every sentence adds value, but the final example 'call federation_search with arguments {}' is redundant and slightly confusing, as it omits the required intent argument, which slightly detracts from conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's purpose as an entry point to route to platforms, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to use it. It includes edge cases (unroutable), deterministic behavior, and the next steps, making it complete for an agent. The output schema is absent, but the description compensates by listing the fields returned, so this is essentially complete.

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% with both parameters (intent and limit) described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the intent parameter with examples and clarifying that limit controls ranked platform returns, plus it describes the output structure (ranked platforms with fields like platform_id, why_matched, score, entry_points). This enriches the parameter semantics beyond the schema alone.

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 clearly states the tool routes a natural-language intent to a platform on the ComOS network, and it explicitly positions itself as 'the first thing to call,' distinguishing it from sibling tools. It uses a specific verb ('route') and resource ('intent to platform') and contrasts with other federation tools.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'the first thing to call' for routing an intent, and it clarifies that it returns a ROUTE, not a transaction, followed by acting on the platform with the chosen tenant. It also notes the behavior for unroutable intents, giving clear usage context and alternatives implicitly by stating what the tool does not do.

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