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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it is a live experimental edge, candidate routing changes may be active, and it falls back to nothing (fully functional router). It also discloses the current state (no candidate active) and the comparison purpose, which is useful and non-contradictory.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the key beta-vs-stable distinction, then the current status, then usage direction. It is a bit dense with parenthetical details (tool count, dates) but every sentence earns its place; minor redundancy like 'this IS a full working router' adds emphasis but is slightly extra.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is nearly complete: it explains what it is, when to use it, how it differs from the stable sibling, and its current live state. It could add an explicit statement of return shape, but since it claims identical response shape to ask_pipeworx and output schema is absent, that reference is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema documents all alias parameters clearly. The description adds the high-level fact that it takes the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema's alias documentation. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema already carries 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 states a specific verb+resource (ask a universal router, identical to ask_pipeworx) and clearly distinguishes it from the stable sibling ask_pipeworx: it is the beta variant with candidate routing improvements. It also names sibling ask_pipeworx_grounded indirectly by framing itself as the universal router, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 explicitly says 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It also states no candidate is active right now, so it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, giving clear when-to-use guidance and enough context to choose between the beta and stable siblings.

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