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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses genuinely useful dynamic behavior: routing improvements can go live at any time, no candidate is active as of 2026-07-26 so it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and results feed comparison against the stable router. It also clarifies it is a full working router rather than a stub — exactly the kind of non-obvious, ever-changing behavior an agent needs to know.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with identity and differentiator, each earning its place. The triple repetition of 'same...same...same' followed later by 'matches ask_pipeworx exactly' is slightly redundant, and the specific date will age, but the description is otherwise tight and well ordered.

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 router over 5,798 tools with no output schema, the description covers the crucial questions: what it is, how it differs from stable, current state, how to invoke it, and what becomes of results. Response shape is handled by reference to the sibling ('same response shape'), which is acceptable but assumes the agent can resolve ask_pipeworx's contract.

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% — all five alias parameters and question are documented in the schema itself, so the description carries no parameter burden. It adds only the cross-reference that arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, which is a marginal confirmation rather than new semantic content. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool is a universal router identical to ask_pipeworx (same 5,798 tools, same arguments, same response shape) but carrying candidate routing improvements. This precisely identifies the verb (route a question to the appropriate tool), the resource (the 5,798-tool universe), and the differentiator from its siblings 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?

Explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and describes the evaluation loop against the stable router. It names the alternative and the selection condition, though it never states explicit exclusions such as when to prefer the stable router instead.

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