Natural language driven autonomous co-scientist workflows involve a fundamental trade-off between flexibility and reasoning at the expense of determinism, reproducibility, and observability. Such agents increasingly must communicate across institutional boundaries, where federation topology can shape latency and cost. We systematically evaluated these tradeoffs using a controlled ablation on a production agentic platform for science. We use a verifiable task: given a protein sequence, we ask an agent to confidently characterize its function by routing across common tools. We compare federation topology, classic RL vs LLM-driven harnesses, language model, and prompt expertise. We also stratify results by protein novelty. We find that the choice of LLM dominated prediction quality far more than topology or prompting (Opus ~92%-94% vs o4-mini ~40%-50%). The PPO policy was nearly as accurate as the best LLM (88%) at zero token cost, fastest latency, and perfect consistency, but yields no reasoning trace. Expert prompted LLMs reached the highest accuracy but were high-cost and less consistent; prompt dependence was largest when the task was hardest. Federation imposed a negligible penalty on performance. These results offer actionable guidance for deploying agents for scientific workflows: for routine, verifiable tasks, a cheap deterministic policy delivers near-frontier accuracy with complete reproducibility, while flexible LLM reasoning is best reserved for open-ended discovery.