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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context: routing variant v9-eval-disjoint-examples is active on every call here versus a traffic slice on ask_pipeworx, and it explicitly counters the assumption that a beta 'falls back' to something. It does not discuss latency or rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the key identity ('Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router'), then the routing difference, then the usage rule. Slightly padded by the re-assertion 'Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router, just the experimental edge,' but that sentence carries real disambiguating value.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully promises the same response shape as ask_pipeworx rather than leaving returns undefined, and it resolves the main ambiguity an agent would have (is this a stub?). Sufficient for a read-only query router, though it never names a concrete return structure.

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 every alias (q, ask, text, input, query, prompt, message) is documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond noting 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx.

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?

States exactly what the tool is — a beta twin of ask_pipeworx, a universal router over 6,470 tools — and explicitly names the sibling it mirrors and how it differs (candidate routing live on every call). An agent can distinguish it from ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded without opening any schema.

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 selection rule: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also clarifies the relationship to the stable router (results are compared to decide merges) and that no fallback is needed, so the agent knows this is a real working option rather than a degraded preview.

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