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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description reveals that no candidate is currently active, so behavior currently matches ask_pipeworx, and that it does not fall back to another tool—it is a full working router. This gives the agent an accurate picture of experimental risk and current behavior.

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 compact and each sentence adds necessary context: beta status, current no-candidate state, when to use, and the no-fallback guarantee. It is front-loaded with the tool's identity and avoids tautology.

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 one required question parameter, the description fully covers invocation behavior, current state, alias expectations, and safety profile. The response shape is said to match ask_pipeworx, which is adequate given the sibling context and the absence of an output schema.

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 six parameters, including aliases, documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond saying arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, so it meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters but adds little extra semantic value.

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 states that this is a beta universal router identical to ask_pipeworx, taking the same arguments and returning the same response shape, with candidate routing improvements. This clearly identifies what it does and distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling by framing it as the experimental edge.

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 explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and explains that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. This names the alternative and the condition that selects this variant, which is strong usage guidance.

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