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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive nature. The description reinforces this ('Read-only', 'performs no transaction') and adds value by revealing the exact content shape (markdown) and composition (in the comos-federation voice). The zero-arg note further clarifies call semantics. Slight deduction for not mentioning caching, speed expectations, or what could go wrong.

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?

Three efficient sentences. Each earns its place: resource identification, read-only safety, return type, zero-arg note, and usage example. No redundancy with the already-clear tool name. Perfect structure in under 60 words.

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?

For a zero-param, read-only, no-output-schema tool, this description covers all bases: what, safety, return format, call signature. Slight deduction for not explicitly stating what kind of knowledge is NOT included (e.g., 'for federation system info, use federation_help') to prevent misuse, but this is minor for such a simple 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?

With zero parameters, the description needs to simply state this. The description does so clearly and even gives an example call ('call how_to_about with arguments {}'). There's nothing more the description could add about parameter semantics.

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 this reads the 'How to use ComOS' walkthrough knowledge. It specifies the exact resource ('How to use ComOS' knowledge in the comos-federation voice) and distinguishes it from siblings by noting it's a knowledge read. The scope ('composed walkthrough knowledge as markdown') is specific and useful.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (when the agent needs ComOS usage knowledge). The zero-arg and identity-free notes clarify usage constraints. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, the zero-arg and read-only nature creates clear context. It could explicitly mention checking federation_help or about_us_about for other info needs.

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