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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: live candidate routing improvements, current inactive state with a retirement date, exact parity with ask_pipeworx right now, and the fact that it is a fully functional router rather than a stub.

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 a single focused paragraph that front-loads the essential 'beta of ask_pipeworx' identity and then clarifies current behavior, experimental status, and fallback expectations. The date detail is specific but supports the 'nothing active right now' claim without bloating the text.

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 a simple question-routing tool, the description covers identity, current status, usage context, and safety profile via annotations. It references the same response shape as ask_pipeworx rather than spelling it out, which is acceptable given the sibling exists, though slightly less complete than fully documenting the output.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters and aliases. The description only repeats that arguments match ask_pipeworx, adding no new parameter-level meaning, which aligns with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 opens by identifying this as 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx' and a 'universal router' with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape, so an agent immediately knows what it does. It differentiates itself from ask_pipeworx as the experimental edge, which separates it from its sibling without opening schemas.

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 explains results are compared against the stable router. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or alternatives like ask_pipeworx_grounded, but the condition for choosing this beta variant is clear.

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