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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open world), so the description's job is added context — and it delivers by disclosing that candidate routes are enabled live under test, that the last candidate was retired on outcome evidence, and that there is no fallback target because this is a full working router. It does not describe latency or output shape details beyond 'same response shape,' which keeps 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-loaded with the identity and the identical-to-ask_pipeworx claim, then the current state, then usage. Slightly padded by the retirement date and the emphatic 'Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router' aside, but each clause carries real signal for an agent deciding between routers.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating the response shape matches ask_pipeworx and by explaining pack-scope fallback behavior indirectly. For a 9-parameter (mostly alias) read-only router, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only per-parameter routing nuance is left to the schema.

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% and every parameter, including all seven aliases and the packs filter, is already documented in the schema. The description only asserts 'same arguments' and adds no new meaning about which alias wins or how packs interacts with routing; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Names the resource precisely (a beta of ask_pipeworx, same 7,176-tool universal router, same arguments and response shape) and explicitly positions it against the sibling ask_pipeworx, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema. The 'what it is currently' caveat (no candidate active) is stated up front rather than buried.

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 notes results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. It does not state an explicit when-not (e.g. prefer ask_pipeworx for reproducibility), but the 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly' disclosure functions as practical guidance that no benefit exists right now.

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