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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that candidate routing improvements are enabled live only when under test, that no candidate is currently active, and that it never falls back to a stub — it is a full working router. This is precisely the behavioral nuance an agent needs for an experimental variant.

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 four sentences are front-loaded with the essential beta router identity and each adds a distinct fact: current no-candidate state, usage direction, and no-fallback guarantee. There is minor redundancy (identical/matches exactly/use exactly like), but nothing wasteful enough to obscure the meaning.

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 single-required-parameter, read-only routing tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers identity, current state, usage, and fallback behavior. Referencing the same response shape as ask_pipeworx is sufficient instead of spelling out a return format.

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%: the schema fully documents question and all five aliases, so the description was not required to add parameter details. It only restates that arguments are the same as ask_pipeworx, adding no new semantic information beyond the schema.

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 opens by identifying this as the beta version of ask_pipeworx and explicitly calls it an identical universal router with the same 5,724 tools, arguments, and response shape. That verb-resource pairing plus the explicit contrast with ask_pipeworx distinguishes it from the sibling while still making its function unmistakable.

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?

It gives a concrete usage rule: use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and it names the stable router as the comparison baseline. It does not spell out a when-not-to-use case or alternatives like ask_pipeworx_grounded, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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