agent_route

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, so the description usefully adds the side-effect boundary: it writes to the ledger, returns a correlation id, and deliberately does not dispatch or notify. Idempotency and failure behavior are not covered, but the core behavioral contract is clear.

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 carry the full purpose, the critical non-effect, the return value, and the companion tools with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded before the alternatives.

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?

The description identifies the return value and related tools, which is helpful. However, with no output schema and zero parameter descriptions, the missing explanation of app_id and context is a real gap that an agent would need to infer from parameter names alone.

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% and the input schema provides only names and types. The description maps 'task goes to that agent' to task/target_agent but does not explain app_id, the optional context object, or what values they expect, leaving a required parameter under-specified.

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 specific verb ('Record') and resource ('routing_decisions ledger'), states the return value (routing_id), and explicitly scopes behavior by noting it does not start or notify the target agent. This clearly distinguishes it from dispatch_send and agent_dispatch_result in the sibling list.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use this tool to log a routing decision, not to deliver work. It names the companion tools dispatch_send for actual delivery and agent_dispatch_result for completion reporting, leaving little ambiguity about workflow sequencing.

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