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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations: live candidate routing, the current absence of an active candidate, and the reassurance that this is a fully working router with no fallback. This is transparent without contradicting the structured hints.

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 front-loaded with the beta identity and packs the essential facts into three sentences: equivalence, experimental behavior, current state, usage instruction, and fallback behavior. No sentence is wasted, and the structure is easy to parse.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description handles this by referencing 'same response shape' as ask_pipeworx, but it does not actually describe what that response shape contains. An agent unfamiliar with ask_pipeworx would still be missing return-value detail. Current-state and routing context are otherwise well covered.

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 each alias documented and the canonical question parameter fully described. The tool description adds no further parameter-level meaning beyond saying 'same arguments,' so the 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 identifies this as a beta universal router with exactly the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape as ask_pipeworx, so its function and scope are explicit. It clearly distinguishes the tool from its stable sibling by the experimental routing improvements and current no-candidate state.

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 to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is wanted, and that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. This gives a concrete when-to-use condition and an implicit when-not-to-use alternative. The no-active-candidate note further clarifies that behavior currently matches the stable version.

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