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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses that candidate routing improvements are enabled live, that no candidate is currently active, that the tool currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and that it is a full working router rather than a fallback stub. This adds meaningful behavioral context about experimental state and comparison logic that annotations cannot convey.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core identity ('Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router'). Every sentence adds a distinct piece of information: current status, usage guidance, and reassurance that it is fully functional. The date and outcome-evidence detail are slightly verbose but serve as concrete evidence of the tool's experimental nature.

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 router tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential context: what it routes, how it differs from the stable sibling, when to use it, current experimental state, and that it is a complete working tool. The reference to 'same response shape' as ask_pipeworx provides sufficient expectation of return structure without needing further detail.

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 100% and the schema already documents the 'question' parameter and all aliases. The description only says 'same arguments' generically, adding no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage but does not exceed it.

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 explicitly identifies the tool as a 'universal router' handling the same 5,724 tools, same arguments, and same response shape as ask_pipeworx. It frames itself as the beta/experimental variant of ask_pipeworx, which clearly separates it from the stable sibling. The verb 'ask' and resource 'universal router' are specific, and the description leaves no doubt about what the tool does.

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 states 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing', providing explicit context for when to choose this tool over the stable router. It also notes that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or address the grounded sibling (ask_pipeworx_grounded), but the conditional 'when you want the newest routing' is a clear and useful guideline.

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