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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-annotation context: candidate routing is enabled live only when under test, none is active now, and results feed routing decisions. It doesn't cover rate limits or output details, but that's largely covered by 'same response shape' and the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the essential distinction ('Beta version of ask_pipeworx'), and the reassuring 'Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router' earns its place. Slightly padded by restating identity three ways ('same 6,865 tools, same arguments, same response shape') and the retirement date, which add bulk without much decision value.

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 with no output schema, the description covers role, experimental status, equivalence to ask_pipeworx, and response-shape parity, which is what an agent needs to call it. Minor gaps remain about how comparison results surface, but those sit in _meta rather than the call contract.

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%, so the schema already documents the nine alias parameters and the packs constraint in detail. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics beyond asserting 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (a universal router over 6,865 tools) and its relationship to a named sibling: it is the beta/experimental-edge version of ask_pipeworx with identical arguments and response shape. An agent can immediately tell it apart from ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and the many other siblings.

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?

It gives an explicit condition—'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing'—and explains the experimental nature. It stops short of a symmetric 'use ask_pipeworx when you want stability' exclusion, leaving the selection rule partly inferable from the 'newest routing' framing.

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