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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: this is the experimental edge, currently identical to ask_pipeworx, has no fallback, and is a fully working router. This level of honesty and detail exceeds what annotations alone provide.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place by clarifying beta status, current behavior, and usage intent. Slight redundancy in stating both 'identical universal router' and 'matches ask_pipeworx exactly' keeps the meaning unambiguous, but the structure is front-loaded and coherent.

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 compensates by stating the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx. It covers what the tool is, its relationship to the stable version, its current runtime state, and that it is a full router. Nothing essential for invoking it or deciding between it and ask_pipeworx is missing.

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%, with all six parameters documented as aliases for 'question'. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond noting the tool uses the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, so the schema carries the burden adequately and the description neither helps nor hurts.

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 the beta variant of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router over 5,708 tools with the same arguments and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by its live candidate routing improvements, and the current no-candidate state is explicit.

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. This gives the agent a clear selection rule versus its primary sibling.

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