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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: no candidate improvement is currently active, so behavior currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and despite the beta label it is a full working router with no fallback. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 informative but somewhat repetitive: 'identical universal router', 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly', 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx', and 'this IS a full working router' all make similar points. Each sentence adds some nuance, but the same message could be delivered in fewer words.

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 single-required-parameter router with rich annotations, the description covers the essential context: beta status, experimental intent, current behavior with no active candidate, how to use it, and its relationship to the stable router. The response shape is only referenced via ask_pipeworx rather than described, but that reference is sufficient given sibling context.

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 every parameter is documented as an alias for 'question', so the schema fully explains parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 clearly identifies this as the beta variant of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It goes beyond a simple label by explaining its experimental role and current equivalence to the stable router. It could be slightly clearer about what a 'universal router' does, but the core purpose and relationship to ask_pipeworx is unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing', giving a concrete condition for choosing this tool. It also points to the stable router as the comparison baseline. It does not explicitly say 'don't use this when you need guaranteed stability', so it's clear but not exhaustive.

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