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

The description discloses that no candidate is active as of 2026-07-26, that behavior currently matches the stable router, and that it falls back to nothing—a full working router rather than a stub. It adds meaningful context beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent). Minor gap: does not disclose rate limits or potential instability of an experimental edge, but the core behavior is clearly disclosed.

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 information-dense and front-loaded with the key routing distinction, followed by current-state context and a clarifying caveat. It earns its length, though the parenthetical about candidate retirement adds more detail than strictly necessary.

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 a single required string parameter, full schema coverage, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does, how to use it, and how it differs from the stable sibling. It does not explain return values, but the stable sibling's shared response shape is referenced and the schema is simple enough that this is a minor 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 coverage is 100% and all six parameters are aliases of the single required 'question' parameter, with complete schema descriptions. The description adds that it accepts 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, but does not need to add more because the schema already fully documents the parameters.

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 explicitly identifies this as the beta version of ask_pipeworx, states it is a universal router with the same tools/arguments/response shape, and clarifies its current state relative to the stable version. It distinguishes itself clearly from the sibling ask_pipeworx and other siblings.

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 instructs to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when wanting the newest routing, and explains results are compared against the stable router. It also clarifies that it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, which prevents an agent from expecting differences.

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