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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it is a beta, candidate routing improvements may be enabled live, no candidate is currently active, and it is a full working router rather than a fallback. This clearly sets expectations about experimental variability and current parity with the stable version.

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: the core identity appears in the opening clause, followed by current status, usage guidance, and a crucial clarification about fallback behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler phrasing.

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 covers the tool's identity, current experimental status, exact usage instruction, and the fact that the response shape matches ask_pipeworx. Since there is no output schema, mentioning 'same response shape' is helpful, but it delegates the actual response-format details to ask_pipeworx rather than stating them directly.

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 aliases and question parameter are already fully documented. The description only says 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, and therefore the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 5,743 tools as ask_pipeworx, which makes the core function clear: accept a natural-language question and route it to the appropriate tool. It also distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by being the beta/experimental edge, while noting it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly.

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 a concrete usage condition: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also clarifies that there is no separate fallback and that results are compared against the stable router. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose the stable ask_pipeworx instead, leaving that to inference.

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