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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar is on added context — and this description delivers richly. It discloses live experimental behavior, the current no-active-candidate state (retired 2026-07-26), current exact parity with ask_pipeworx, and the 'falls back to nothing' clarification meaning it is a fully working router. This is exactly the volatile operational context an agent cannot infer from schema or 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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the defining fact (beta universal router with candidate routing) before current status, usage, and comparison purpose. Every sentence carries distinct information — beta nature, current equivalence, when to use, and full-functionality reassurance. It approaches the upper bound of skimmability but contains no filler.

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 complex experimental router with no output schema, the description covers the critical operational facts: current state, parity with the stable sibling, when to use it, and the purpose of result comparison. The response shape is delegated via 'same response shape' as ask_pipeworx rather than described inline, which is a mild but acceptable gap given the sibling reference.

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 baseline is 3 even though the description adds no per-parameter semantics. The context signals report 6 parameters, and visible properties q, text, and input are self-documented as aliases for question. The description only contributes parity information ('same arguments' as ask_pipeworx), which is tool identity, not parameter meaning.

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 this as a beta version of ask_pipeworx: a universal router over 5,798 tools with identical arguments and response shape. It clearly differentiates the tool from its stable sibling by the candidate-routing aspect. It falls short of 5 because the core function (route a question to tools) is implied via 'universal router' rather than stated with a concrete verb+resource phrasing.

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 names the stable router as the comparison baseline. It also clarifies that results feed merge decisions against the stable router. The when-not case (prefer ask_pipeworx for stable output) is left implicit rather than stated as an exclusion.

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