service_route

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does so meaningfully: it states that the tool actually invokes target tools, that dry=True only returns a plan without execution, and that it returns the underlying tool's result rather than a suggestion. It could still mention error/side-effect behavior, but the core execution behavior is explicit.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the orchestration pattern, then defines each parameter and the return behavior in a few dense clauses. Every sentence contributes semantic value with no filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 dynamic router with no annotations and a bare schema, the description covers the essentials: goal selection, query semantics, dry mode, and actual execution behavior. It does not specify error handling or a full goal-to-tool mapping, but the presence of an output schema and the tool's role as a generic dispatcher reduce that gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining goal as a category word, query as a topic/URL/camp_id parameter, and dry as the plan-vs-execute mode. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it stops short of exhaustively mapping goal values to specific target tools.

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 identifies a goal-based service-router: it 'does not hint, but itself calls the needed tool by goal' ('НЕ подсказывает, а САМ вызывает нужный тул по цели'). This is a specific verb+resource description that also distinguishes it from advice/suggestion-style siblings like tool_hint.

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 provides concrete goal examples, explains the query parameter, and documents dry mode, giving the agent a clear sense of when to invoke this orchestrator instead of manually selecting a tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the auto-dispatch behavior is well implied.

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