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

Annotations already say readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds value by revealing the live A/B test behavior: candidates may be enabled or retired, current state is 'no candidate active', and results are compared against stable routing. It closes the gap for a beta execution surface without contradicting 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?

Four sentences and every sentence earns its place: what it is, what changed, current state, and how to use it. Slightly longer than the model example but each part is useful, and the front-loaded 'same 5,798 tools' identity anchors the tool immediately.

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?

The routing beta is inherently dynamic; the description captures the current candidate status with a concrete retirement date and says comparisons drive merge decisions. It does not detail the response shape or failure modes, but with 100% schema coverage and readOnly/idempotent annotations, the remaining gaps are minor and there is no output schema to require explanation.

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%, so the schema already documents the question parameter and its five aliases. The description adds the alias behavior conceptually ('same arguments, same response shape') but does not list the aliases itself, so it adds little beyond the schema. This matches the baseline 3 for full schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (universal router identical to ask_pipeworx), frames it as the experimental/beta variant, and explicitly distinguishes it from the stable sibling by naming the candidate-routing difference. The description also names its current behavior (matches ask_pipeworx exactly) so an agent is not misled by the beta label.

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?

Directly says 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing'. It also disambiguates from ask_pipeworx_grounded and other siblings by contrasting experimental candidate routing against the stable router, and explicitly warns it is a full working router, not a stub. This is explicit when-to-use guidance with clear scoping.

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