agent_route

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the ledger write, return of routing_id, and the non-start/notify side effect. However, it does not mention error cases, permissions, or idempotency semantics, though the disclosed behavior is substantial.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the caveat. Every clause earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 ledger-write tool with no output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, return value, and tool relationships. It could be extended with edge-case behavior, but what's provided is sufficient for safe invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It paraphrases task and target_agent via 'this task goes to that agent', but app_id and context are not explained at all. The description adds minimal value beyond the raw schema types.

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 states a specific verb 'Record a routing decision' plus resource (routing_decisions ledger) and return value (routing_id). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by noting it does NOT start or notify, unlike dispatch_send, and that completion is via agent_dispatch_result.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use (recording routing decisions) and explicit when-not-to (does not deliver work), with named alternatives (dispatch_send for delivery, agent_dispatch_result for completion). This exceeds baseline by identifying adjacent tools.

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