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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: beta status, that no candidate routing is currently active, that results feed a comparison against stable, and that it never falls back to an empty answer. It doesn't describe timing, rate limits, or response internals, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Front-loads the key fact (this is the beta router, identical to ask_pipeworx) and stays reasonably tight. It drifts into redundancy with the closing 'Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router, just the experimental edge,' and the opening sentence is overloaded, but no sentence is wasted outright.

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 router with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers identity, equivalence to ask_pipeworx, current operating state, and the stable-vs-beta decision, which is what an agent needs before invoking it. Reference to 'same response shape' is enough given the schema is fully documented.

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%, so all 9 parameters (question plus its seven aliases and packs) are already documented in the schema, including the pack-restriction behavior and _meta fallbacks. The description adds only 'same arguments' with no extra syntax or format meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource — a universal router that answers questions across the same 7,013 tools — and explicitly frames itself against the sibling ask_pipeworx as the experimental edge of the same operation. An agent can distinguish it from ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a clear selection rule ('use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing') and names the alternative (the stable router) it is compared against. It stops short of an explicit 'do not use when' statement and the guidance is self-undercutting since no candidate is active, but the context for choosing it is present.

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