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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: that this is an experimental edge with candidate routing improvements, that no candidate is currently active, and that it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It also explicitly states it falls back to nothing and is a full working router, which is important behavioral information not present in 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?

The description is a single dense paragraph that front-loads the key facts: beta variant, identical router, same tools/arguments/response shape, current inactive candidate, and usage instruction. It is somewhat long but every sentence earns its place by clarifying the experimental status and routing behavior. Minor redundancy exists in saying 'identical universal router' and then listing the same dimensions, but the repetition reinforces the critical point that this is not a limited beta.

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 tool with a single required natural-language parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, how it differs from the stable sibling, the current experimental state, and that it is fully functional. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call this tool and what to expect.

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 all six parameters, including the aliases for question. The description adds the semantic point that the tool takes a natural-language question or request, but it does not add detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 this as a beta variant of ask_pipeworx, explicitly stating it is an identical universal router with the same 5,937 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by noting candidate routing improvements and the current inactive state, so an agent can understand exactly what this tool is and how it relates to its 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?

The description explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and explains that results are compared against the stable router to decide what merges. It also clarifies that it falls back to nothing and is a full working router, not a stub, which removes ambiguity about when it is appropriate to invoke.

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