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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the beta behavior, live candidate routing improvements, the current inactive state (retired 2026-07-26), and that it falls back to nothing but is a full working router. This gives an agent an accurate picture of the experimental nature without overpromising or undermining the tool's functionality.

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 well-organized and front-loaded with the key identity statement, followed by current status and usage guidance. The date and tool count add some specificity, but the prose is efficient and every sentence contributes to accurate use.

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 universal router with no output schema, the description usefully references the same response shape as ask_pipeworx and clarifies that it is a complete working router. It covers the main agent-facing concerns: similarity to stable, current behavior, and intended use, though slightly more detail on expected response variability could help.

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%, with all aliases and the question parameter fully documented in the input schema. The description adds that it uses the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, but this is contextual rather than adding new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and explains it is an identical universal router over 5,724 tools with the same arguments and response shape. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting candidate routing improvements may be enabled, which differentiates it from the stable ask_pipeworx.

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 says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when wanting the newest routing, which is a clear usage directive. It names the alternative stable router and explains the beta is compared against it, though it does not provide an explicit 'when not to use' condition.

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