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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds value by explaining that routing candidates may be enabled live and that currently no candidate is active, making it match ask_pipeworx exactly. It also clarifies this is a full working router, not a fallback stub. This is useful behavioral context beyond 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 three sentences and front-loads the essential identity and purpose. The detail about the last candidate being retired on a specific date is somewhat extraneous but still contributes to the current-state transparency. Overall it is efficiently written without padding.

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 single-parameter natural-language router, the description is quite complete: it covers identity, current experimental state, relationship to the stable router, and confirms the same response shape. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit reference to ask_pipeworx's response shape, though an agent unfamiliar with ask_pipeworx would still need to look it up.

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%: the input schema fully documents 'question' and all aliases (q, text, input, query, prompt). The description only says 'same arguments' without adding new parameter-level meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed what the schema already provides.

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 is specific and immediately identifies the tool as the beta version of ask_pipeworx: an identical universal router with the same 5,908 tools, arguments, and response shape. It clearly distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx by framing it as the experimental edge with candidate routing improvements. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 this tool exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, naming the stable router as the comparison point. This gives clear selection context, though it does not explicitly state a when-not-to-use scenario beyond implying stable routing would use ask_pipeworx.

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