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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those: it discloses that candidate routing improvements are enabled live, that no candidate is currently active (retired 2026-07-26), that results are compared against the stable router, and that the tool does not fall back to anything. This experimental-state transparency is exactly what annotations cannot capture, and there is no contradiction.

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 four sentences and reasonably well structured: purpose, current status, usage instruction, and reassurance. It likely repeats the 'identical/exactly matches ask_pipeworx' idea several times, but each repetition serves a slightly different purpose (identity, current state, and usage). It is slightly wordier than necessary but remains clear and front-loaded.

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 tool's complexity — a universal router over 5,721 tools, no output schema, and beta status — the description covers the experimental state and usage well. However, it does not explain what the response shape actually is, only that it is the same as ask_pipeworx, and it relies on the reader knowing what ask_pipeworx does. The lack of an output schema makes this reliance more significant, so the description is not fully self-contained.

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 provides 100% description coverage, clearly documenting a 'question' parameter and five aliases (q, text, input, query, prompt) with natural-language guidance. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond saying 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 identifies the tool as 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx' and an 'identical universal router (same 5,721 tools, same arguments, same response shape)', which conveys that it routes natural-language questions to Pipeworx tools. It makes the beta relationship to the stable ask_pipeworx explicit, and the sibling list confirms that distinction. However, it never states from scratch what 'routing' actually means or what kind of answer the user receives, so it relies somewhat on prior knowledge of ask_pipeworx.

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 to use it 'exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and reassures that it is a full working router, not a fallback. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and indirectly points to ask_pipeworx as the stable alternative. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use exclusions or address ask_pipeworx_grounded, so it stops short of a 5.

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