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

The description transparently reveals that this is a beta version with live candidate routing improvements that may change behavior, and that currently no candidate is active, so it matches the stable router exactly. It also clarifies that it is a full working router and not a fallback. This goes beyond the basic readOnly/idempotent annotations by explaining the experimental nature and current state.

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 a single paragraph of five sentences that contains some redundancy, such as repeating 'candidate routing improvements' and the explanation of no active candidate. It is not excessively long, but it could be more direct and concise. The key information is there, but the structure is a bit repetitive.

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?

The description provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool: what it is, its current state (no candidate active), how to use it (use like ask_pipeworx), and that it is a full router. The annotations cover safety aspects, and the schema is simple. The description does not mention the response format, but that is implied by 'same response shape' as ask_pipeworx. Overall, it is complete enough for effective usage.

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 description does not add meaning beyond the schema. The schema already lists all six parameters and their descriptions, including the aliases (query, q, prompt, text, input). The description merely restates 'same arguments' and 'accepts query, q, prompt, text, input as aliases,' which is already fully covered by the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a beta version of a universal router with the same capabilities as ask_pipeworx. It states it routes requests to 5,907 tools with the same arguments and response shape, and that it is a full working router. The purpose is clear, though slightly obscured by the verbose explanation of candidate routing improvements.

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?

The description provides some usage guidance, stating 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' This indicates when to choose this tool over the stable ask_pipeworx. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives like ask_pipeworx_grounded, leaving some ambiguity for an agent deciding between sibling tools.

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