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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond those: it clarifies that no candidate is currently active, so it behaves identically to ask_pipeworx, and that it is a full working router with no fallback. This transparency helps an agent understand the current operational state without contradicting the annotations.

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 moderately sized but every sentence adds value: beta status, current state, usage directive, fallback clarification, and comparison mechanism. It is front-loaded with the beta designation and the reason to use it. Though it could be trimmed, it is not bloated and remains concise enough for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity as a router with many underlying tools and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: the identical response shape to ask_pipeworx, the current no-candidate state, and the full-working-router nature. It explains the beta intent and the comparison to the stable router, which is enough for an agent to correctly invoke it in most situations.

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%, with each parameter fully described, including aliases for 'question'. The tool description only says 'same arguments' without adding new meaning, which is acceptable given the schema already carries the weight. It does not introduce any new parameter details or conflicts, so baseline 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 uses a specific verb and resource: it is a beta universal router identical to ask_pipeworx with candidate routing improvements. It explicitly names the stable sibling and the grounded variant, and clarifies its scope (same 5,724 tools, same response shape). The purpose is unambiguous and distinguishes it clearly from alternatives.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also outlines the comparison mechanism and that it is the experimental edge, effectively implying the alternative is to use the stable ask_pipeworx when you do not want the newest routing. This meets the bar for explicit when/alternatives guidance.

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