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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: it is experimental, candidate routing improvements are enabled live when under test, currently no candidate is active so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. This is exactly the kind of nuance an agent needs to interpret outputs and choose confidently.

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 dense but purposeful, with each sentence contributing a distinct fact: beta status, identical behavior, current no-candidate state, usage direction, and fallback clarification. It is front-loaded with the beta relationship, although the parenthetical detail about the retired candidate and the date is slightly extraneous. Overall it earns its length.

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 tool with a single natural-language parameter and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: it is a full working router, identical to ask_pipeworx, and currently in a known experimental state. It references the response shape as identical to ask_pipeworx but does not describe what that shape is, which is a minor gap; however, an agent can consult the sibling tool's documentation. This is complete enough for correct invocation.

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?

The schema provides 100% description coverage for all six parameters, including the required 'question' and its five aliases, so the structured data already carries the parameter semantics. The description only adds that the tool takes 'the same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which is a helpful but not necessary restatement. With such high schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states what the tool is: a 'universal router' over 'the same 5,743 tools' with 'the same arguments and response shape' as ask_pipeworx. It also explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling ask_pipeworx by being the beta version with candidate routing improvements. This gives a specific verb, resource, and scope.

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 advises to 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing,' naming the alternative and the condition that selects it. It also clarifies that this is a full working router that 'falls back to nothing,' so an agent won't mistake it for a stub. It does not exhaustively contrast with ask_pipeworx_grounded, but the primary routing decision is well covered.

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