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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the bar for the description. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it is a live experimental edge, candidate improvements can be active, it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and it is a fully working router with no fallback. This gives the agent a clear behavioral model without contradicting the 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?

The description is moderately detailed but each sentence earns its place: it defines the tool, states the current active-candidate status, gives usage direction, and reassures that it is fully functional. Some repetition exists ('identical universal router' and 'same 5,743 tools, same arguments, same response shape'), but it is not excessive.

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-question universal router with no output schema, the description provides everything needed to invoke it correctly: what it does, how it relates to ask_pipeworx, when to use it, its current experimental state, and its non-fallback behavior. The response shape is explicitly stated to match ask_pipeworx, so the missing output schema is not a gap.

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 documented as aliases of the single 'question' parameter, so the schema already carries the semantic burden. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond saying the arguments are the same as ask_pipeworx, which is sufficient given the high 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 states a specific purpose: it is the beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router over the same 5,743 tools with the same arguments and response shape. It clearly distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling by its experimental routing status, so an agent can tell it apart.

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 you want the newest routing' and notes that results are compared against the stable router. It also clarifies the current state ('No candidate is active right now'), so the agent knows when this tool matches the stable version exactly and when it may differ.

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