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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent; the description adds important real-world behavior: candidate improvements are only active when under test, the last candidate was retired on 2026-07-26, and there is no fallback path. This clarifies that the tool is fully functional despite being experimental, which goes beyond annotation data. It does not dwell on latency or authentication, but the annotations lower the burden for those aspects.

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?

Every sentence is load-bearing: it establishes what the tool is, its current candidate state, when to use it, how results are evaluated, and that it is not a stub. It is appropriately sized, though the final sentence is slightly emphatic and could be tightened.

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 universal-router wrapper, the description covers current state, equivalence to the stable tool, invocation guidance, and the shared response shape despite there being no output schema. It assumes some familiarity with ask_pipeworx, which is acceptable given that ask_pipeworx appears in the sibling list, so no critical decision-making information 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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-level guidance beyond telling the agent to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 that this is a beta version of ask_pipeworx and an 'identical universal router' with the same 5,728 tools, arguments, and response shape, making it a concrete and specific resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by describing the experimental routing candidates, so an agent can separate it from sibling tools.

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 directly instructs the agent: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing,' and contrasts results with the stable router for merge decisions. It stops short of spelling out an explicit when-not-to-use condition or naming other alternatives such as ask_pipeworx_grounded, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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