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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds dynamic context: candidate routing improvements may activate, the last candidate retired 2026-07-26, and results are compared against the stable router. This goes beyond annotations by explaining the tool's experimental and evolving nature.

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 with no filler, but slightly repetitive: 'identical universal router' and 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly' overlap. The front-loaded first sentence gives the core purpose immediately, and every sentence contributes operational context.

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 routing tool with no output schema, the description states the response shape is the same as ask_pipeworx, and it explains the experimental behavior and current status. It could be more explicit about what the response contains, but referencing ask_pipeworx covers the essential. Since all parameters are documented and safety is covered by annotations, this is reasonably complete.

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%, with all six parameters documented as aliases for 'question'. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond stating it has the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, which is redundant with the schema. 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?

States clearly that this is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape. It differentiates itself from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling by being the experimental edge with candidate routing improvements. The verb 'ask' and 'router' indicate the action and resource.

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 instructs 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing', naming both the condition and the stable alternative. Also clarifies current state (no active candidate, matches ask_pipeworx exactly) and that it is a full working router, not a fallback. This is strong when-to-use guidance.

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