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

The annotations already establish read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful dynamic context: candidate routing changes are 'enabled live whenever one is under test,' the last candidate was retired, and it 'falls back to nothing' because it is a full working router rather than a stub. There is no contradiction with 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the identifying beta relationship and scope. It contains some historical detail ('retired on outcome evidence 2026-07-26') that is not essential for invocation, but it supports the account of current behavior and is not bloated.

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?

The description tells the agent this is a fully functional router, mentions the same response shape as ask_pipeworx, and describes the only situational behavior, candidate testing. With no output schema and six alias parameters, it is slightly elliptical about the actual response format, but referencing the sibling's identical response shape is sufficient for an agent familiar with the stable tool.

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 schema already documents all six parameters with 100% coverage, including the 'question' property and its five aliases. The description refers to 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, but that adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 defines the tool as a 'universal router' with the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape as ask_pipeworx, making its core function apparent. It separates this beta from its sibling by emphasizing 'candidate routing improvements,' 'newest routing,' and 'experimental edge,' so an agent can tell it apart from ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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 gives an explicit use condition: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also explains the current state, noting that no candidate is active and the tool currently matches ask_pipeworx, which tells an agent whether behavioral differences are expected. It does not spell out when to prefer the stable router, but the experimental framing implies it.

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