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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses crucial behavioral context: it is an experimental edge, candidates are enabled live only when under test, no candidate is currently active, and it has no fallback to another router. This prevents an agent from assuming it gracefully degrades to stable behavior, which is valuable beyond what the annotations express.

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 dense but not bloated: each sentence conveys useful information about beta status, current behavior, usage, and lack of fallback. The parenthetical counts and retirement date add specificity, though the description could be slightly more streamlined without losing 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 universal router with a single required question parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: same arguments as ask_pipeworx, same response shape, current parity with stable, and the experimental nature. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and interpret the result by referencing the stable sibling.

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 input schema already covers all six parameters, including alias descriptions for question, so the description need not add parameter-level detail. It only mentions that the tool takes the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, which is useful context but not significant additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool as a beta universal router, states that it uses the same tools, arguments, and response shape as ask_pipeworx, and distinguishes it from the stable sibling by emphasizing the experimental routing edge. This gives an agent a specific, non-tautological understanding of 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?

It explicitly says to use it like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and explains that results are compared against the stable router. This provides a clear when-to-use signal and names the relevant alternative, though it could be even more explicit about when not to use it in favor of the stable version.

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