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

The description discloses live experimental behavior, notes that no candidate is currently active, states the current exact match to ask_pipeworx, and explains that results are compared against the stable router for merge decisions. This is substantial context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations and does not contradict them.

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?

Three dense sentences front-load the beta relationship and current status, then provide usage, telemetry, and fallback behavior. Every sentence adds necessary context with no filler.

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 full schema coverage, rich annotations, and a statement that the response shape matches ask_pipeworx, the description gives an agent everything needed to invoke it correctly. The only minor omission is an explicit 'do not use' condition, but the stable sibling is already referenced.

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 coverage is 100% and all parameters are documented as aliases for `question`, so the schema already carries the semantic load. The description adds only a generic statement about same arguments as ask_pipeworx, not enough to raise the score above baseline.

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 specific role: a beta universal router identical to ask_pipeworx but with candidate routing improvements. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the stable sibling and clarifies it is a full working router, not a fallback stub.

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?

It explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and names the stable router as the comparison baseline. It does not explicitly say when not to use it, but the stable alternative is clearly implied and named.

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