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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it warns that candidate routing improvements may be enabled live, states that no candidate is active right now, and confirms this is a full working router with no fallback. These details help the agent understand the experimental, evolving nature of the tool. The annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description does not repeat or contradict 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 compact and information-dense, covering identity, current state, usage guidance, and fallback behavior in four sentences. It is slightly long due to repeated clarifications (e.g., 'Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router'), but each sentence adds a distinct fact. The key distinguishing point (beta, experimental routing) appears early, aiding quick comprehension.

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 universal router with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool is, how it currently behaves, when to use it, and that it fully works without fallback. It references 'same response shape' as ask_pipeworx, which presumes familiarity with the sibling. A small gap is that it doesn't describe what a typical response looks like, but this is mitigated by pointing to the identical stable sibling and the absence of output schema.

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, including all aliases (q, text, input, query, prompt) and the main 'question' parameter, has a description in the schema. The tool description only says 'same arguments' and does not add any parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline expectation for high coverage.

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 it is a 'beta version of ask_pipeworx' and an 'identical universal router' that routes questions to the same 5,743 tools, which clearly identifies its purpose. It also differentiates it from the stable ask_pipeworx by emphasizing the experimental candidate-routing aspect. However, it never explicitly says 'answers questions by routing them to appropriate tools,' relying on the reader to understand what a universal router 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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also contrasts with the stable router and mentions that results are compared to decide merges, giving a clear selection criterion. The absence of an explicit 'when not to use' is acceptable because the condition for using it is positively stated and the alternative is named.

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