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

Adds substantial behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations: the beta status, that no candidate is currently active so it exactly matches ask_pipeworx today, that results are live-compared against the stable router for merge decisions, and the explicit 'falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router' guard against treating the beta as a stub. This is exactly the experimental-risk context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Roughly 70 words across four sentences, with each sentence carrying a distinct job: identity and scope, current parity state, usage mode plus evaluation role, and no-fallback reassurance. The key identity claim is front-loaded and there is zero filler or redundancy.

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?

Covers identity, current behavioral state, usage guidance, response-shape parity, and functional safety. With no output schema present, the 'same response shape' parity statement partially compensates for the lack of return-format documentation; describing the routed result structure itself would be the only remaining gap, which is minor given the agent can reference 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% for all 6 parameters (question plus 5 documented aliases), so the baseline is 3. The description's note that arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx is useful for cross-tool knowledge reuse, but it adds no new semantic detail about the question format or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb and resource: a beta universal router identical to ask_pipeworx, covering 5,798 tools with the same arguments and response shape. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning itself as 'the experimental edge' with candidate routing improvements, so an agent can tell it apart from ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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?

Provides an explicit when-to-use condition: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' The stable-vs-experimental contrast with the ask_pipeworx sibling makes the alternative selection obvious, though it stops short of explicitly stating 'use the stable version when you want proven routing.'

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