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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable live-state context: no candidate is currently active, the last candidate was retired on 2026-07-26, and the tool currently behaves exactly like ask_pipeworx. It also discloses the experimental 'candidate routing improvements' behavior without contradicting the annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded with the key facts: beta status, identity, current behavior, and usage. The final sentence about falling back to nothing is slightly redundant with the earlier 'full working router' claim, but it still earns its place by addressing a likely misconception.

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 no output schema and a single required parameter, the description adequately covers identity, current state, usage, and relationship to the stable router. It references 'same response shape' as ask_pipeworx, which is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. The main gap is not explaining how candidate routing improvements might change behavior, but this is arguably the definition's intended ambiguity.

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 input schema has 100% coverage and describes all six parameters, including the aliases for 'question'. The description only says 'same arguments' and does not add semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, 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 explicitly that this is a beta/experimental universal router, identical to ask_pipeworx with the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling and from the grounded variant by its live-testing purpose, making the tool's role concrete.

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 gives a direct usage instruction: use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It also clarifies that this is not a fallback but a full working router, which removes ambiguity about when it applies.

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