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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly=true, openWorld=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false) by disclosing the live candidate-retirement cycle, the current inactive state ('the last was retired on outcome evidence 2026-07-26'), and the crucial clarification that it 'falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router.' It also reveals the evaluation loop where outputs are compared to decide merges. This is unusually candid and contradicts nothing in the annotations.

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?

Four dense sentences, each earning its place: identity/scope, current state, usage directive, and behavioral clarification. The defining trait is front-loaded in the first clause. Slightly long, but the length correlates with genuinely useful content rather than padding.

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-required-parameter router with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it is, how it differs from siblings, current runtime state, usage, and expected response shape ('same response shape' as ask_pipeworx). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing; the only gap is that behavior when a candidate IS active is described generically, not concretely.

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% — all six parameters (q, text, input, query, prompt, question) are individually documented as aliases for the required 'question' field. The description adds only the compatibility note 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which is marginal beyond the schema. At high schema coverage the baseline of 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?

The description states a clear purpose: this is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an 'identical universal router' with the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable sibling (ask_pipeworx) and the grounded variant (ask_pipeworx_grounded) by being the experimental edge. It relies slightly on knowing what ask_pipeworx does, but 'universal router' plus the tool count conveys the core function directly.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It names the stable alternative and the condition selecting this tool, and clarifies that results are compared against the stable router. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use statement, but 'experimental edge' and the beta naming imply the stable tool is the safer default.

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