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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety. The description adds valuable context: experimental routing improvements, current state with no active candidate, and that it is a full working router with no fallback. This goes beyond the annotations 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 verbose, with repetition like 'identical universal router' and 'same ... same ... same'. It front-loads key info but includes transient details about the last retired candidate that could be trimmed. Structure is logical but not optimally concise.

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 that it directly references ask_pipeworx for full details and annotations cover safety, the description provides sufficient context on usage and experimental status. It does not describe the output format, but it explicitly states the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx, making it complete enough for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% with all aliases documented. The description only says 'same arguments' without adding any new semantic meaning, so it does not improve upon the schema. Baseline 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 states it is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape. This distinguishes it from the sibling ask_pipeworx by emphasizing experimental routing improvements while making its core function explicit.

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 exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and notes results are compared against the stable router. This gives a clear usage condition and implies the stable alternative (ask_pipeworx), though it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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