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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses the experimental status, that candidates may be enabled live, that results are compared for merge decisions, and that it 'falls back to nothing' but is a full working router. It also clarifies that it currently matches the stable router exactly. This does not contradict the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, or destructiveHint annotations.

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 sized and mostly front-loaded, starting with the identity as a beta version and the key equivalence to ask_pipeworx. The sentences about candidate status and comparison against stable are relevant and not wasteful. The phrasing 'falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router' is a slight self-correction but adds clarity rather than redundancy.

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 that is a variant of an existing sibling, the description provides sufficient context: it names the parent tool, notes identical response shape, and explains the current behavior. With 100% schema coverage and annotations covering read-only/idempotent semantics, the missing return-value specification is acceptable because the response shape is the same as ask_pipeworx, which an agent can refer to.

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%, with each parameter (including aliases) described in the input schema. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond saying 'same arguments as ask_pipeworx', which is acceptable but not additive. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description does not 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 it as a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx and the sibling ask_pipeworx_grounded by emphasizing the experimental routing candidate. While 'universal router' is slightly abstract, the context of sibling tools and the explanation of candidate routing makes the purpose clear.

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 states when to use it: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also explains the comparison against the stable router and that no candidate is currently active, so behavior matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It stops short of listing exclusion criteria (e.g., when to prefer ask_pipeworx_grounded), but the guidance is specific enough for agent selection.

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