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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: it is a live experimental router, a candidate may be active or not, it currently matches the stable router, and it has no fallback. This fully discloses the experimental nature and operational context.

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?

Four information-dense sentences, with the core identity front-loaded. The date of the last candidate retirement and the explicit 'falls back to nothing' clarification are useful, though slightly more verbose than strictly necessary. No filler or repetition.

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?

Given the single required parameter, high schema coverage, and safety annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, its beta status, and its relationship to the stable router. The response-shape parity with ask_pipeworx compensates for the absence of an output schema.

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%; all six parameters are documented as aliases for 'question.' The description states the tool has 'same arguments' but adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 this is a beta universal router over 5,743 tools, with the same arguments and response shape as ask_pipeworx. It explicitly names the sibling ask_pipeworx and explains the current relationship (matches it exactly), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit direction: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also names the stable alternative and explains why results are compared against it, which tells the agent when this experimental variant is preferable.

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