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

Adds substantial context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: beta status, live-testing behavior ('candidate routing improvements enabled live whenever one is under test'), current parity with the stable router, and the assurance that 'this IS a full working router' with no fallback. It also warns that behavior is being evaluated against the stable router, exactly the kind of volatility an agent must know before invoking. No contradiction with 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?

Four sentences that each earn their place, with identity and beta status front-loaded and usage guidance following. Minor redundancy: parity with ask_pipeworx is stated twice ('identical universal router' and 'matches ask_pipeworx exactly'), and 'Falls back to nothing' initially reads like failure rather than a stub disclaimer. This costs one point.

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?

Given rich annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive) and 100% schema coverage, the description covers the remaining essentials: current state, selection condition, and experimental risk. It is not a 5 because it delegates the base function and response shape entirely to the ask_pipeworx sibling, so an agent without that sibling's definition would not know what output to expect.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters (question plus five aliases). The description adds only a parity claim ('same arguments') and no per-parameter meaning, which matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 identifies a specific resource — a beta 'universal router' over 5,798 tools — and distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling ('Beta version of ask_pipeworx', 'this currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly'). It stops short of a 5 because the core operation of the router is defined by reference to ask_pipeworx rather than stated independently.

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 condition — 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' — and contrasts the experimental edge with the stable router that results are compared against. It implies but does not explicitly state when to choose the stable variant instead, so it misses the full when/when-not structure of a 5.

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