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

The annotations already mark it read-only, open-world, and idempotent; the description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: it is a live experimental edge, candidate routing improvements are enabled only when under test, no candidate is active at the time of writing, and it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It also clarifies it 'falls back to nothing' and is a full working router, disclosing availability and active state.

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 moderately long but information-dense and front-loaded with the beta identity and universal routing scope. Each clause adds context (candidate status, no active candidate, comparison purpose, fallback behavior), though the specific retirement date is a minor detail that may become stale.

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 is complete for practical invocation: it names required argument behavior ('exactly like ask_pipeworx'), states response shape equivalence, and defines the beta/experimental status. Because there is no output schema, the description could have spelled out the response contract, but referencing the identical response shape of ask_pipeworx provides a workable anchor.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage across all six parameters, the schema already documents the question parameter and aliases, so the description doesn't need to add much. The phrase 'same arguments' reinforces compatibility with ask_pipeworx but adds no new semantic detail about individual parameters, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States it is the beta version of ask_pipeworx and describes its function as a universal router with the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape, which clearly distinguishes it from the stable sibling. The specificity of 'candidate routing improvements' and 'experimental edge' makes the purpose unambiguous and not tautological.

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?

Offers an explicit usage condition: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It identifies the stable router as the comparison alternative and notes that results are compared to decide merges, giving clear context; it stops short of stating explicit when-not-to-use conditions or naming other alternatives like ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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