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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds behavioral details: it is fast and deterministic, returns an empty route with `unroutable:true` when no platform matches, and explicitly states it is not a transaction. This gives agents a clear expectation of side-effect-free behavior and failure handling.

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 highly repetitive, restating the same information multiple times (e.g., the purpose is repeated in various phrasings, the return type is described twice). It also contains a typo ("An intent platform serves returns an empty route") which hampers readability. The core content could be conveyed in a concise paragraph.

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?

Despite its verbosity, the description covers all critical aspects: input (intent), output (ranked platforms with tools), edge cases (empty route when no platform matches), and behavioral characteristics (fast, deterministic, not a transaction). It also provides an example call. Thus, it is functionally complete for an agent to understand and use the tool.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for both `intent` and `limit`. The description adds value by giving concrete examples for `intent` (e.g., "t-shirts", "make an appointment") which clarifies the natural-language input format. However, `limit` is not elaborated beyond its schema text, and the example call uses `{}` without discussing `limit` behavior.

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: routing a natural-language intent to the right platform on the ComOS network. It gives concrete examples ("t-shirts", "make an appointment") and explicitly clarifies it returns a route, not a transaction, distinguishing it from typical action-oriented 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 explicitly says "the first thing to call," establishing it as the entry point for intent resolution. It also explains that after receiving a route, the caller should act on the chosen platform with the specified tools, providing clear next-step guidance. The example call with `{}` further demonstrates usage.

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