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

The description discloses that it is experimental, a full working router (not a fallback), and that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. This goes beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, etc.) and sets expectations about behavior without contradicting them.

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 somewhat repetitive, e.g., 'same response shape' appears twice, and 'identical' is restated in different forms. It could be more concise, but it is still organized and not excessively long, so a middle score is fitting.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description states 'same response shape' as ask_pipeworx, leveraging the sibling tool's known behavior. It also mentions comparison to the stable router and the experimental edge, providing enough context for typical usage, though not exhaustively detailed.

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 description covers all six parameters, explaining they are aliases for the natural-language question. Since the schema provides 100% coverage and the tool description adds no extra parameter nuance, 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 identifies the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router, and distinguishes it from the stable sibling by noting identical functionality but with experimental routing improvements. The phrase 'universal router' plus the explicit comparison to ask_pipeworx conveys the purpose effectively.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also notes that currently no candidate is active, so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly, which helps decide between stable and beta versions. This gives clear situational direction.

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