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

Beyond the readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive annotations, the description discloses that routing improvements can be enabled live during testing, that no candidate is currently active, and that it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. This gives the agent important context about potential behavior drift and the experimental nature of the 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 front-loaded with the core facts: beta status, identical router, same tools/arguments/response shape, and live candidate behavior. It then adds the current no-candidate state, usage directive, and no-fallback clarification in three dense but purposeful sentences with no wasted words.

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 universal router with no output schema, the description provides the essential context: it behaves like ask_pipeworx, has the same interface, may change under candidate testing, and is fully functional. It relies on the agent knowing ask_pipeworx's interface, but the sibling tool is present and the reference is explicit, leaving only minor gaps about specific routing behavior differences.

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 covers all parameters with 100% description coverage, including the question parameter and its aliases. The description only says 'same arguments' and does not add further meaning about how to construct or use them, so it stays at the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 the beta variant of ask_pipeworx and specifies that it is an identical universal router over the same 5,908 tools with the same arguments and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by positioning itself as the experimental edge, so an agent can tell it apart without inspecting the schema.

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 tells the agent when to use it: exactly like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is desired, and that results are compared against the stable router. It also clarifies that there is no fallback and that this is a fully working router, which prevents the agent from treating it as a partial or stub tool.

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