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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it is a full working router, not a stub or fallback; it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly because the last candidate was retired; and it is an experimental edge with candidate routing under test. This gives agents an accurate expectation of behavior without contradicting 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?

The description is longer than a minimal tool description, but the extra length is justified by the beta/experimental nuance and the need to clarify that this is a fully functional router despite the 'beta' label. Key information is front-loaded in the first sentence. The sentence about the retired candidate is useful context, though some redundancy exists around 'same tools, same arguments, same response shape'.

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?

Given the rich annotations, full schema coverage, and sibling context, the description gives enough for an agent to decide whether to use this tool and how to invoke it. It explains current behavior, safety profile, and relationship to ask_pipeworx. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by stating the response shape matches ask_pipeworx, though the shape itself is not described.

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 has 100% description coverage and fully documents all six parameters as aliases for 'question'. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, but it does not need to because the schema already handles it. The claim 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx is a mild additional cue, but the schema remains the primary source.

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 with an identical tool set, arguments, and response shape, and explains the differentiator: experimental routing improvements. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling by explaining the candidate-routing comparison. However, 'universal router' is somewhat abstract and the core action is implied rather than stated as a concrete verb.

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 says to 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing,' which gives a concrete usage context. It also notes the current state (no active candidate, so behavior matches ask_pipeworx exactly) and explains that results are compared to decide merges. It does not give explicit when-not-to-use guidance, such as avoiding it for stable/production results.

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