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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond these: the experimental nature, live candidate routing changes, current parity with ask_pipeworx, and the reassurance that it is a full working router ('Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router'). 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?

The description is front-loaded with the beta identity and relationship to ask_pipeworx, then gives the current live status, usage instruction, and an explicit clarification that it is not a degraded fallback. Each sentence adds distinct information, and nothing is redundant.

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 the tool's complexity as a universal router, the description covers identity, sibling distinction, current behavior, usage instruction, and safety profile. It states the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx, so the absence of an output schema is not a gap. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and understand what it will do.

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%, and the schema fully documents the 'question' parameter and its aliases. The description only restates that arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, adding no new parameter-level semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the 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 states a specific verb ('ask') and resource ('universal router'), and immediately distinguishes this beta variant from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling by clarifying that it has the same 5,724 tools, arguments, and response shape. It also explains the current operational state ('No candidate is active right now'), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool 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?

The description explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It names the stable sibling and explains the comparison workflow ('results are compared against the stable router'), giving a clear decision rule with no inference required.

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