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

With readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive annotations already present, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: candidate routing improvements are enabled live only when one is under test, none is active now, and it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It also clarifies the potential misconception with 'Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router.'

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 front-loaded with the core fact and each sentence contributes operational information such as current candidate status and usage instructions. Some specifics like '5,714 tools' and the exact retirement date are slightly heavy, but they support the parity claim.

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 an experimental twin of a known sibling, the description covers parity, current behavior, when to use it, and the no-fallback guarantee. It references 'same response shape' rather than detailing return values since no output schema is present, which is reasonable but less self-contained than ideal.

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% and the schema already documents 'question' and its aliases. The description only repeats that arguments are the same as ask_pipeworx, adding no per-parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 names the tool as the 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx' and defines it as an identical universal router with the same 5,714 tools, arguments, and response shape. This distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling and avoids tautology.

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 names the stable router as the comparison point for merges. It provides clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use exclusions, 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.