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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context: it is a full working router, falls back to nothing, may have live candidate routing enabled, and currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly because no candidate is active.

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 front-loaded with the core definition and then adds current status, usage guidance, and the no-fallback clarification. It is somewhat dense and repeats the 'exactly like ask_pipeworx' idea, but every clause contributes.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately communicates the response shape by pointing to ask_pipeworx. Combined with full parameter schema coverage and safety annotations, the agent has enough information to invoke this tool correctly.

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 the required question parameter and aliases q, text, and input already documented. The description only says arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, which is a useful pointer but adds no new parameter-level 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 clearly identifies this as a universal router identical to ask_pipeworx, with the same 5,801 tools, arguments, and response shape, differentiated only by candidate routing improvements. This is specific and distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling.

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. It does not give a formal when-not-to-use statement, but the intended selection context is clear.

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