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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that behavior may change when candidates are tested, that no candidate is currently active so it matches the stable version exactly, and that it does not fall back to anything else—it is a fully working router. This is transparent about the experimental nature and current state.

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 three concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose, then provides usage guidance and behavioral transparency in a well-organized manner.

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 tool with a simple parameter set and no output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly: it explains what it does, when to use it, and how it behaves. No critical information is missing.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with a description for the 'question' parameter and aliases. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema, so 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 clearly states that this is a universal router identical to ask_pipeworx but with experimental routing improvements. It specifies the tool's function (routing to 5,801 tools) and distinguishes it as the beta version of the stable sibling.

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 explicitly says 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing,' giving direct guidance on when to choose this over the stable alternative. It also explains that results are compared against the stable router, clarifying its purpose as an experimental testbed.

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