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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It does so by disclosing beta status, the possibility of live candidate routing changes, the current no-candidate state, and the fact that there is no fallback — it is a full working router. This gives the agent an accurate picture of the tool's experimental and time-varying behavior.

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 four sentences and each sentence contributes relevant information: beta status, equivalence to ask_pipeworx, current no-candidate state, and intended usage. The retirement date and 'falls back to nothing' phrasing add useful context but are slightly more detailed than strictly necessary for tool selection.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating that the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx. It covers current behavior, the experimental caveat, and usage equivalence, which is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. The main dependency is on the agent already understanding ask_pipeworx, but that is a sibling tool and a reasonable reference point.

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%, so the schema already documents q, text, and input as aliases for the required question parameter. The description adds the useful cross-reference that the arguments match ask_pipeworx, but it does not otherwise explain parameter meaning or format. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the main semantic 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 identifies the tool as the beta variant of ask_pipeworx and explains it is a universal router with the same tool set, arguments, and response shape. This distinguishes it from ask_pipeworx by its experimental routing behavior, though it never explicitly states that the tool accepts a natural-language question and returns a routed answer; that remains implied by the shared name and 'universal router' language.

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 to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is desired, and it explains that results are compared against the stable router. It also notes that no candidate is currently active, so behavior currently matches ask_pipeworx. It lacks an explicit 'do not use' statement for stable or production contexts, though 'experimental edge' implies the caveat.

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