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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the beta nature, that candidates are toggled live, that none is currently active, and that it is a fully working router rather than a fallback. It also clarifies the comparison/merge workflow with the stable router. The annotations already provide readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting them.

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 dense but purposeful, front-loading the beta identity and matching behavior, then routing guidance, then the no-candidate status. Slightly verbose but every sentence earns its place by clarifying what 'beta' actually means operationally.

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 this is a single-string-parameter router with a full alias set in the schema and clear annotations, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it correctly: what it is, how it differs from the stable version, current active state, and the fact that it is fully functional. It doesn't explain the response shape, but the description explicitly says the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx, and there is no output schema. Minor gap: it doesn't enumerate sibling alternatives for when NOT to use it beyond ask_pipeworx, but the universal-router framing covers that.

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% for the single required question parameter and its five aliases, and the description adds that it takes 'the same arguments' as ask_pipeworx. The description doesn't add new parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but the schema fully documents the parameter. 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 clearly identifies this as the beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router that is functionally identical to the stable version. It distinguishes itself from the sibling ask_pipeworx by explaining it is the experimental edge with candidate routing improvements, and it explicitly names the stable counterpart. The verb 'ask' plus 'universal router' and the full explanation of its current behavior make the purpose unmistakable.

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 to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and notes results are compared against the stable router. It also states that no candidate is active right now, so it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. This gives an agent clear guidance on when to select this tool over its sibling.

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