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

The description goes well beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations by disclosing that candidates may be enabled live, that no candidate is currently active, that it currently behaves exactly like ask_pipeworx, and that it does not fall back—this is a fully working router. No contradiction with 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?

Dense but well ordered: identity, current candidate status, usage instruction, comparison purpose, and no-fallback clarification each earn their place. The most decision-relevant facts, beta, matches stable now, use like ask_pipeworx, are front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description could be more explicit about response shape, but it defers to ask_pipeworx's response shape, which is acceptable if that sibling definition is visible. The main completeness gap is the unaddressed relationship to ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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 every parameter is documented as an alias for 'question,' so the schema carries the semantic load. The description merely says 'same arguments' and adds no parameter formatting or composition guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Clearly identifies itself as a beta universal router identical to ask_pipeworx, same 6,232 tools, same arguments, and same response shape, with an experimental routing role. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling ask_pipeworx_grounded, relying on the reader to infer the difference.

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?

Gives an explicit condition: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing,' and explains that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. It does not state when to avoid it or how it compares to ask_pipeworx_grounded, so the exclusion guidance is partial.

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