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

Annotations already carry the full safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description only needs to add behavioral context, which it does well: version state (no candidate active since 2026-07-26, currently identical to stable) and the critical clarification that it 'falls back to nothing' and is a full working router, not a degraded stub. No contradiction with 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 dense sentences, each earning its place: identity, current state, usage guidance, and fallback behavior. Slightly redundant in places ('identical' followed by the enumerated same-items parenthetical, and the doubly-emphasized fallback clarification), but information density is high and key facts are front-loaded.

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 universal router that accepts any question, the description covers identity, selection criteria, current operational state, and fallback behavior — the main risks for an agent. Response shape is delegated to ask_pipeworx via 'same response shape,' which is acceptable but assumes the agent knows that sibling's output. No output schema exists, so a slightly fuller return description would be the only meaningful addition.

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% and documents question as the single meaningful parameter with five aliases (q, text, input, query, prompt). The description adds only a cross-reference that arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, which is useful but does not enumerate or elaborate. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the 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?

States a specific function — a universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape as ask_pipeworx — and differentiates it from its stable sibling by calling out the beta/candidate-testing status. The 'universal router' phrasing plus the explicit same-tools/arguments/shape enumeration lets an agent know exactly what invoking it does.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It names the stable alternative (ask_pipeworx) and explains the evaluation context (results compared against the stable router to decide merges). The negative case — use stable for non-experimental routing — is strongly implied but not stated outright.

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