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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so the lower bar applies; the description still adds real context: candidate routes are compared against the stable router, nothing merges without outcome evidence, and it does not fall back to the stable router. Missing only operational detail such as latency, rate limits, or cost of a routing call.

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 beta-identity and equivalence claim, which is the key fact. The closing 'Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router, just the experimental edge' is slightly redundant/marketing-flavored given the earlier 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly', but overall it is compact for a router with a nuanced selection story.

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 9-parameter (1 real + 8 aliases) read-only router with a fully described schema, the description covers purpose, sibling relationship, and current experimental state. With no output schema, the only gap is that response shape is deferred to ask_pipeworx rather than described, which is acceptable given the claimed identity but leaves a small hole for an agent that does not know 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 description coverage is 100%, including the alias set and the packs scoping/fallback behavior in _meta.pack_scope, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing about arguments beyond saying they are identical to ask_pipeworx, so 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?

Names the resource precisely — a beta twin of ask_pipeworx, a universal router over 7,127 tools — and states it shares the same arguments and response shape. It explicitly positions itself against the sibling ask_pipeworx, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either 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 an explicit selection rule: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing,' with the alternative (stable ask_pipeworx) named. It goes further and discloses current state — no candidate is active, so today it is behaviorally identical to ask_pipeworx — which tells the agent there is presently no reason to prefer it.

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