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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral detail: it returns a thesis object with specific components, includes an 'honest door-state caveat' (open via tokened apply; tokenless never admits), and notes it is 'relayable verbatim.' This goes beyond the annotation safety profile and informs the agent of what to expect.

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 moderately concise but contains some redundancy, e.g., it says 'Returns the thesis: ...' then later 'Returns: A thesis object: ...' covering similar ground. However, it is front-loaded with the purpose and usage, and the redundancy is minor. It remains readable and informative.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains the return object's structure (thesis, play, what-you-could-become, etc.) and the caveat. It also points to related tools for further help. Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, read-only), the description is complete and leaves little ambiguity.

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?

There are 0 parameters, and the schema covers 100% of them (none). The description even provides an example call 'with arguments {}' to confirm no input is needed. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adequately addresses this.

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's purpose: 'Why build on ComOS — the case for becoming a vendor, not just a buyer.' It explicitly distinguishes from federation_help ('federation_help tells you HOW; this tells you WHY'), making the unique function unambiguous. It also specifies it returns a thesis object, so the outcome is clear.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Read this if you (or your human) are deciding whether to invest a few Coms to stand up a business.' It also directs users to federation_help for how-to details, providing both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. The mention of alternate resources (federation_help, how-to, on-ramp manifest) strengthens the routing.

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