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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: candidate routing improvements are 'enabled live' when under test, the last candidate was retired, and it 'falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router.' This resolves potential misconceptions about beta status.

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 reasonably concise and front-loads the core beta definition, then adds current status, usage guidance, and a clarifying statement. Some redundancy exists in the parenthetical enumeration of 'same 5,743 tools, same arguments, same response shape,' but it is informative rather than wasteful.

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 beta universal router, the description covers what it is, its current experimental state, how to use it, and how it relates to the stable version. The simple schema and rich annotations handle safety and parameters, and the description explicitly addresses output shape by referencing the identical response shape of ask_pipeworx.

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%, and the schema thoroughly documents question plus five aliases. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond echoing 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, so baseline 3 is appropriate; the schema carries the full burden and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx: 'identical universal router (same 5,743 tools, same arguments, same response shape)' with an experimental routing edge. It distinguishes this from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling by explaining it is the 'experimental edge' and currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use it: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also provides context about the active experimental state: 'No candidate is active right now... so this currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly.' This gives the agent a clear decision rule versus the stable sibling.

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