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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds context that no candidate is currently active, so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly today, and that it is a full working router with no fallback. It also explains the experimental nature and how outputs are used for merge decisions.

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?

Three well-structured sentences: first establishes the beta identity and relationship to the stable router, second gives current-state status, third gives usage and boundary. No filler or redundancy; each sentence earns its place.

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-question router, the description covers key concerns: identical to ask_pipeworx, no active candidate, when to use, and comparison purpose. It references 'same response shape' to indicate output, though it doesn't detail the response structure; given no output schema and a sibling with known behavior, this is acceptable.

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 fully documents the single required 'question' parameter and all five aliases, with 100% schema coverage. The description adds no further parameter semantics, merely stating 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 explicitly states the tool is a universal router, a beta variant of ask_pipeworx with the same 6,032 tools, arguments, and response shape. It clearly separates itself from the sibling ask_pipeworx by calling itself the experimental edge and the experimental edge.

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?

Explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when wanting the newest routing, and mentions results are compared against the stable router. It implies the alternative (ask_pipeworx for the stable version) is the alternative for non-experimental behavior, though it doesn't explicitly state the when-not-to-use condition.

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