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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the experimental status, live candidate routing improvements, the comparison against the stable router, and the 'falls back to nothing' behavior. It clarifies the tool is a full working router, not a stub. It does not mention potential variability in responses during active experiments, but the beta framing and current-state note cover the main behavioral risks.

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 four sentences long, front-loaded with the tool's identity, then covers current state, usage intent, and a clear caveat about it being a full router. Some redundancy exists between 'identical' and 'matches exactly', but it reinforces the key safety signal that this is equivalent to the stable version right now.

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 beta router with experimental state and no output schema, the description covers what the tool is, its current equivalence to ask_pipeworx, how it should be used, and the evaluation context. It does not describe the exact response format, but it references the same response shape as ask_pipeworx and the annotations cover the safety profile, so the missing return details are a minor gap.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for the required question parameter and its five aliases (q, text, input, query, prompt). The description merely says 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which adds no semantic information beyond what the schema already documents. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same tool set and arguments, which differentiates it from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling. However, the phrase 'universal router' leaves the underlying function (routing natural-language questions to internal tools) somewhat implicit, keeping it from being a 5.

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 states to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and it names the stable sibling as the point of comparison. It also notes that no candidate is currently active, so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly right now. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use conditions or guidance on choosing ask_pipeworx_grounded, but the context is solid.

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