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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar for added value is met by describing live-updating behavior ('enabled live whenever one is under test'), the current temporal state (no active candidate since 2026-07-26), the comparison-against-stable operational detail, and the full-capability claim ('Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router').

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 adding distinct information: purpose, current experimental state, usage directive, and the not-a-fallback clarification. Slight redundancy exists ('identical' echoed by the triple 'same'), but the core purpose is front-loaded in sentence one and no sentence is wasted.

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 no-output-schema router, the description covers scope, current live state, comparison behavior, and sibling relationships. The only meaningful gap is that the response shape is deferred by reference ('same response shape') rather than described, so an agent unfamiliar with ask_pipeworx would need a second lookup to know what to expect back.

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 fully documents `question` and its five aliases; the description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond referencing 'same arguments' by analogy to ask_pipeworx. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the entire 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 first sentence states a specific function: a beta universal router identical to ask_pipeworx (same 5,724 tools, same arguments, same response shape). It explicitly names its stable sibling ask_pipeworx, so an agent can distinguish experimental from stable routing without opening either schema.

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 an explicit directive: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It names the stable alternative and the deciding condition, and clarifies it is a full working router rather than a stub. It stops short of an explicit exclusion (e.g., when to prefer the stable router), leaving the agent to infer that stability-seeking calls should go elsewhere.

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