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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read behavior is covered. The description adds transparency about the beta nature: candidate routing improvements may be enabled live, results are compared against the stable router, and it 'falls back to nothing' because it is a full router, not a stub. This is useful behavioral context beyond the 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 concise and front-loaded with the beta identity and the key equivalence to ask_pipeworx. Every sentence contributes: current match state, experimental purpose, comparison mechanism, and the fallback clarification. Slight redundancy in 'identical universal router' and 'same 5,908 tools, same arguments, same response shape' could be trimmed, but it is efficient overall.

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 router tool with 6 alias parameters and no output schema, the description explains the current behavior (no active candidate), the experimental edge, and the comparison-to-stable-router process. It doesn't spell out return value shape, but there is no output schema and the description says the response shape matches ask_pipeworx, which is sufficient context. The only minor gap is not listing when the candidate improvements would be active, but the description explicitly says none are active now and the tool should be used like 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% and the schema fully documents all six parameters, including the alias relationships. The description itself doesn't add meaning beyond confirming that the tool accepts the same arguments as ask_pipeworx. Given the schema already provides complete parameter semantics, the baseline of 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 clearly identifies this as the beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same tool set and arguments. It explicitly explains the current state ('identical to ask_pipeworx exactly') and the experimental purpose, distinguishing it from the stable router while noting it currently matches. The verb+resource is specific: it routes questions to the same 5,908 tools with candidate routing improvements.

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 also describes the current state (no active candidate, so it matches the stable router), which prevents over-eager selection. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but it clearly frames the sibling comparison with ask_pipeworx.

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