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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that candidate routing improvements may be enabled live, that none are currently active, that behavior currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and that this is a full working router rather than a fallback. It also mentions the identical response shape, which compensates for the lack of an output schema.

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 front-loaded with the tool's identity and usage, then adds purposeful context about candidate testing, current status, and the fallback clarification. It is moderately long but every sentence contributes useful information.

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 router tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the current exact-match behavior, the relationship to the stable router, the experimental nature, and the response shape. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke it.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds little beyond saying the arguments are the same as ask_pipeworx, which is acceptable because the schema already carries the semantic burden.

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 this as a beta version of ask_pipeworx: an identical universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable sibling by emphasizing the experimental edge and the candidate-routing mechanism.

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 it exactly like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is desired, and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the beta framing and 'experimental edge' language imply the stable version is the safer choice.

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