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

The description goes beyond annotations by revealing that candidate routing improvements are enabled live during testing, that no candidate is active now, and that it is a full working router with no fallback behavior. This gives useful context about variability and reliability, though it does not explicitly restate read-only behavior (already covered by 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 reasonably concise but contains some redundancy, such as repeating 'identical' and 'full working router' and the two-sentence explanation of beta status. It is well-structured and front-loads the key distinction from ask_pipeworx, but could be slightly tighter without losing meaning.

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?

The description provides essential context about beta status, current candidate state, and comparison with the stable router, and references the response shape being identical to ask_pipeworx. For a routing tool with no output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to decide and invoke it, though it lacks examples or edge-case guidance.

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?

The schema description already covers all six parameters, including alias support for the question field. The description adds no new semantic information beyond what is in the input schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same tool set and arguments, and differentiates it from the stable sibling by emphasizing experimental routing improvements. Although it does not explicitly state 'routes natural language queries to tools', the term 'universal router' and the comparison to ask_pipeworx convey the core purpose effectively.

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 states when to use this tool: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing', and contrasts it with the stable router by noting results are compared to decide merges. It also clarifies the current state (no active candidate, matches ask_pipeworx exactly), leaving no ambiguity about selection.

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