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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, so the description rightly focuses on beta-specific operational details: live candidate routing, current inactive status with a retirement date, identical tool/arguments/response shape, and no fallback. This goes well beyond the annotations and tells the agent the exact current state and experimental nature.

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?

Four sentences pack a lot of state and usage information without unnecessary repetition, and the beta nature is front-loaded. The 'Falls back to nothing' sentence is slightly dramatic but earns its place by warning against assuming this is a degraded stub.

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 one-semantic-parameter experimental router with no output schema, the description covers current behavior, exact parity with stable, selection criteria, and evaluation context. An agent has enough information to call it correctly and interpret its role among the siblings.

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 every parameter is documented as an alias for 'question,' so the structured data already carries the semantic meaning. The description only says 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx and adds no alias-specific detail beyond what the schema 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 identifies the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx and calls it an identical universal router with the same 5,724 tools, which gives a concrete scope and separates it from the stable sibling. It doesn't spell out the ultimate user-facing function, such as 'answer a question by routing to tools,' but 'universal router' and the explicit comparison to ask_pipeworx make the purpose reasonably clear.

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?

It states exactly when to choose this tool: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also tells the agent that with no active candidate it currently matches ask_pipeworx, and that results are compared against the stable router, making the experimental evaluation role explicit. The stable alternative is clearly implied through the ask_pipeworx references.

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