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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses important behavioral traits: routing improvements can be enabled live during tests, the current active-candidate status, and that outputs are compared against the stable router to inform merges. It also states that with no candidate active it behaves identically to ask_pipeworx, which is valuable transparency for an experimental tool.

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-loads the most important fact — that this is a beta version identical to ask_pipeworx — before explaining current status and usage. The specific tool count and retirement date add context but are slightly more detail than strictly necessary, so it is efficient though not maximally lean.

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 complex experimental routing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, current behavior, usage, and experimental nature well. It references 'same response shape' as ask_pipeworx rather than describing the response directly, which is a small gap if the agent does not already know ask_pipeworx's shape, but the pointer is clear and sufficient in context.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with all six parameters described as aliases for 'question'. The description confirms 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. This is the baseline score appropriate when the schema already carries the parameter meaning.

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 identifies a specific action and resource: it is the beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router over 5,798 tools with the same arguments and response shape. It explicitly differentiates itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by noting candidate routing improvements, and the phrase 'identical universal router' pins down the core purpose without ambiguity.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and clarifies that results are compared against the stable router. It also clarifies the current state (no candidate active, so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly) and addresses a likely misconception by stating 'Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router.' It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it versus the grounded sibling, but the stable-versus-experimental distinction is clear enough.

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