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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: candidate routing improvements are only live during tests, no candidate is active now, it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and it 'falls back to nothing' — it is a full working router. This meaningfully clarifies the beta/experimental behavior beyond the hint fields.

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 four sentences and every sentence earns its place: beta identity, current status, usage instruction, and no-fallback assurance. The specific details like '5,908 tools' and the date of the last retired candidate are concrete and help set accurate expectations without becoming fluff.

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 one required parameter, the description plus schema and annotations covers how to invoke it, when to choose it, and what behavior to expect relative to ask_pipeworx. It notes the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx, so no output schema is needed. The only slight gap is not explaining how this differs from other ask_pipeworx variants beyond the beta angle.

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%, with all six string aliases clearly documented. The description only says the tool accepts the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, which adds little semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already 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 the tool as 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx' and an 'identical universal router' with the same 5,908 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable sibling by being the experimental edge, and the title plus 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx' communicate the action. It doesn't explicitly define what a universal router does, but the sibling context makes the purpose sufficiently clear.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also mentions that results are compared against the stable router, reinforcing when this variant is relevant. It doesn't mention alternatives like ask_pipeworx_grounded or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of full exclusion guidance.

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