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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the description's job is to add operational context. It does so: it explains that experimental routing is enabled only while a candidate is under test, that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges, and that no fallback exists because this is a full router. The currently active/no-active claims are time-sensitive and will become stale, and latency or cost is not mentioned.

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 opening sentence is front-loaded and informative, but the same point is restated three times: "identical universal router," "use it exactly like ask_pipeworx," and "currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly." The parenthetical tool count and the details about the retired candidate add bulk, and the time-stamped status will go stale.

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 tool with nine parameters, only one of them required, and full schema coverage, the description supplies the key context: equivalence to the stable router and the experimental-routing caveat. There is no output schema, but the description states that it shares ask_pipeworx's response shape. The remaining gap is what routing actually produces, which is left to the sibling's definition.

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%, so aliases, the required question field, and the packs scoping and its ignored/full-catalog fallback are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 specifically that this is the beta variant of ask_pipeworx: the same universal router over 7,238 tools, with candidate routing changes enabled. That distinguishes it from the stable sibling ask_pipeworx. It never plainly says what the router does (route a natural-language question to the right tool), so the reader must already know ask_pipeworx to understand it.

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 gives an explicit directive: "Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing." It also warns that no candidate is currently active, so the tool behaves exactly like ask_pipeworx today. It does not state a rule for preferring stable ask_pipeworx (e.g. for reproducible results), leaving that inference to the reader.

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