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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context about the beta nature, live candidate routing, the current state (no active candidate), and clarifies that it is a full working router, not a fallback. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 moderately sized but front-loads the core purpose and current state, then moves to usage and clarification. Each sentence earns its place, though a slightly tighter wording could remove redundancy (e.g., 'identical' and 'matches exactly' both appear). It remains clear and well-structured.

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 covers the router's scope, experimental nature, current status, and usage guidance. It mentions the same response shape as ask_pipeworx, which is sufficient given the sibling exists. Missing details like response structure are not critical since the tool is a simple question-to-router with a well-known sibling, and no output schema is provided.

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 coverage is 100% for all six parameters, so the schema fully documents them. The description only restates that the tool uses 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, adding no new semantic information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full 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 clearly identifies the tool as a universal router with 5,724 tools, same arguments and response shape as ask_pipeworx, and explicitly distinguishes itself as the beta version. It conveys the exact function and differentiates from the stable sibling, making it easy for an agent to understand what it does.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and clearly states that results are compared against the stable router. It implies when to use the stable alternative (when not seeking experimental improvements) and names the primary sibling, 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.