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

Annotations already cover the safe read-only, open-world, idempotent profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: live candidate routing improvements, current experimental status with no active candidate, and comparison against the stable router. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey, though it doesn't add operational details like rate limits or timeout behavior.

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 with the core definition front-loaded and the current experimental status explained efficiently. The level of detail is justified for a beta tool whose behavior varies over time; no sentence is redundant.

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 high-complexity universal router with no output schema, the description gives enough context to invoke it: what it does, when to use it, current status, and relationship to ask_pipeworx. It does not describe the response shape itself, but it references the stable sibling's response shape, which is sufficient for selection.

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%; the schema already documents the 'question' parameter and all aliases. The description only says 'same arguments' and does not need to add parameter detail, so it meets the baseline without adding extra semantic value.

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 this as a beta universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments and response shape as ask_pipeworx, while also distinguishing it as the experimental edge with candidate routing improvements. It is unambiguous about what the tool does and how it relates to its stable sibling.

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 you want the newest routing' and contrasts it with the stable router, whose results are compared for merge decisions. It also clarifies current state (no active candidate, so behavior matches ask_pipeworx) and that it does not fall back to a stub.

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