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

The description goes well beyond the annotations: it explains that candidate routing improvements may be live, that no candidate is currently active, that behavior currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and that results feed merge decisions. It also explicitly warns it is the experimental edge and that there is no fallback. This is exceptionally transparent about mutable behavior and current state.

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 dense but efficient: it front-loads the identity and scope, then explains current status, usage, and the absence of fallback in four purposeful sentences. No sentence is wasted, and the key caveat about experimental behavior is prominent.

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 is a universal router with one required natural-language argument and no output schema, the description covers the important operational details: identical behavior to ask_pipeworx, same response shape, possible live routing changes, and no fallback. It is complete enough for selection and invocation, though the actual response format is only described relationally via ask_pipeworx.

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%, with all six parameters fully documented as aliases for the natural-language question. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but the schema already carries the full burden. 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 states the tool is a universal router identical to ask_pipeworx, with the same 5,724 tools, arguments, and response shape. This clearly identifies what it does and distinguishes it from the stable router by its beta/experimental status. It relies somewhat on the sibling ask_pipeworx for full framing, but is not a tautology.

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 says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when the goal is the newest routing, and notes that results are compared against the stable router. It also clarifies that it is a full working router rather than a stub or fallback. It provides a clear use condition, though it does not enumerate exclusions or alternative grounded-mode routing.

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