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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. Beyond that, the description adds valuable context: candidate routing improvements are only active during live tests, no candidate is currently active (so it matches stable exactly), and it is a full working router rather than a fallback stub. No contradiction with 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the identity statement, but wordy: the precise retirement date (2026-07-26), the '5,798 tools' count, and the final 'Falls back to nothing' sentence are partly redundant with the earlier 'identical universal router' and 'full working router' claims. Every sentence carries some information, but it could be tighter.

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 covers the response shape by referencing ask_pipeworx ('same response shape'), communicates the current behavioral state, and clarifies the tool is fully functional. Annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers all parameters. The main gap is the assumption that the agent knows ask_pipeworx's routing behavior and response format from elsewhere.

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 documented including the alias relationship (q, text, input, query, prompt as aliases for question). The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which is a cross-reference rather than semantic detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 a 'universal router' sharing the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape as ask_pipeworx, and explicitly frames it as the beta/experimental edge of that router. It differentiates from the sibling ask_pipeworx (stable) via the candidate-improvement mechanism, though it leans on ask_pipeworx being known rather than stating the base routing function from scratch.

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?

Gives an explicit usage condition: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing; results are compared against the stable router to decide what merges.' This names the alternative (stable ask_pipeworx) and the selection criterion. It doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it (e.g., prefer the stable router for reliability), but the when-to-use guidance is unambiguous.

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