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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, non-destructive, and non-open-world Ratio, so the description doesn't need to reiterate safety. It adds meaningful behavioral details: return shapes for each arg mode, the filter combos, and the edge case that retired platform values are accepted but return 'honest-empty list'. This goes beyond annotations and gives the agent a clear picture 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 dense but well-organized: it opens with the tool's core purpose, then systematically explains argument modes, and ends with a concrete example. Every sentence adds information; the only minor issue is the amount of detail could be reduced slightly without losing clarity, but it's still efficient.

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 absence of an output schema, the description provides detailed return structures for each argument mode, including the summary fields. It discusses edge cases (e.g., retired platforms return honest-empty list) and explains the relationship with a sibling tool. This covers all essential aspects the agent likely needs.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the combined behavior of omitting vs passing each parameter and the exact return structures for each call mode (grouped fleet vs filtered list). For 'agent', it states it returns a full card, which the schema does not specify.

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 uses a clear verb ('Browse') and specific resource ('ComOS network agent fleet') and immediately distinguishes what it does ('what each agent does and who it serves'). It contrasts with sibling tool federation_catalog_platforms ('agents are the operators you hire; platforms are what you become'), making its unique role unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to omit args (fleet view), when to pass 'serves' or 'platform', and when to use 'agent' for a single agent's card. It also names the sibling platform tool and explains the relationship, giving clear guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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