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

Annotations already indicate a read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive tool. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: current experimental status, that no candidate is active right now, that it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and that it falls back to nothing because it is a full working router.

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 efficient: it front-loads the beta relationship, states equivalence, gives the usage condition, and clarifies that this is a fully functional router. Every sentence contributes useful information without repeating what the annotations or schema already cover.

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?

The description covers current state, equivalence to the stable router, usage intent, evaluation behavior, and fallback semantics. It is slightly less complete on what the universal router actually returns, though 'same response shape' partially addresses that by pointing to ask_pipeworx.

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 already documents the required 'question' parameter and all four aliases with 100% coverage. The description only says 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which does not meaningfully add to the parameter-level meaning already provided by the schema.

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 it is the beta version of ask_pipeworx: an identical universal router with the same 5,908 tools, same arguments, and same response shape. This verb+resource framing clearly explains what the tool does and distinguishes it from ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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 says to 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and explains that results are compared with the stable router. It gives clear context for when to select this variant, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer the stable ask_pipeworx instead.

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