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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real operational context: no candidate is currently active, results are compared against the stable router to decide merges, and 'falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router,' which preempts an agent assuming a degraded experimental endpoint.

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 key facts (identical to ask_pipeworx, no candidate active, use it the same way) are front-loaded, but the text is padded with repetition ('same 7,125 tools, same arguments, same response shape', 'falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router') that could be trimmed 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?

For a single-question router with no output schema, the description states the response shape matches ask_pipeworx and references where routing decisions surface (_meta comparison against the stable router). An agent has enough to call it correctly and to set expectations about results, though return-value details are deferred to the sibling's documentation.

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 packs parameter is documented in detail (ignored slugs, _meta.pack_scope.ignored, full_catalog fallback), so the schema carries the load. The description itself adds no parameter guidance beyond stating 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which earns the baseline 3.

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?

Identifies the tool as a 'universal router' over 7,125 tools with the same arguments/response shape as ask_pipeworx, which tells an agent what it does. It differentiates from the sibling by positioning itself as the experimental edge of the same router, though it never spells out the routing behavior in a single crisp verb+resource sentence.

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?

'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' gives an explicit selection condition against the stable sibling. It lacks an explicit when-NOT-to-use (e.g. preferring ask_pipeworx for production determinism), and it partly undercuts itself by saying it currently behaves identically, which weakens the motivation to pick it.

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