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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the experimental status, the fact that no candidate is currently active (with a retirement date as evidence), the comparison-to-stable evaluation behavior, and the assurance that this is a full working router with no fallback. This gives the agent a realistic model of what will happen when invoked.

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, each earning its place: identity, current state, usage directive, and capability reassurance. Front-loaded correctly with the core identity in sentence one. Some redundancy exists ('identical universal router' + 'matches ask_pipeworx exactly' + 'this IS a full working router' all reinforce the same non-stub point), and the specific 5,798-tool count is a detail that may go stale.

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 query-router tool with no output schema, the description handles the gap well by pointing to the sibling's 'same response shape' and confirming full functionality. An agent has everything needed to invoke correctly: the required parameter, the alias set, the usage context, and the current behavioral state. Minor gap: the response shape is only described indirectly via reference to ask_pipeworx.

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% — every parameter (question, q, text, input, query, prompt) is documented as an alias for question. The description adds no new parameter-level detail, only noting 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully carries the parameter documentation 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 states a specific identity and function: a beta universal router identical to ask_pipeworx with experimental routing improvements. It explicitly names the stable sibling it is a variant of, differentiating itself as the experimental edge. The verb+resource (router for universal queries) is clear and specific.

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 when-to-use directive: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also clarifies the current state (no active candidate, so it matches stable exactly), which is important usage context. However, it never explicitly says when NOT to use it, such as 'use ask_pipeworx for proven/stable routing,' leaving the exclusion to inference.

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