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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent hints, the description discloses the current experimental state: no candidate is active, the last was retired on a specific date, and behavior currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It also states the tool 'falls back to nothing' and is a complete router, which is important behavioral context.

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 dense and front-loaded with the key concept 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx.' Each sentence earns its place, though the exact retirement date and the redundant emphasis that this is a full working router could be trimmed in a more compressed version.

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 the tool's beta nature and the lack of an output schema, the description gives an agent everything needed to call it correctly: what it is, how it relates to the stable sibling, when to use it, its current behavior, and its no-fallback status. The reference to 'same response shape' as ask_pipeworx is acceptable since that sibling is explicitly present.

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 input schema already covers all parameters at 100%, including the required question parameter and its five aliases. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond noting 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, so the schema carries the semantic load.

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 identifies a specific resource ('ask_pipeworx'), states it is a beta universal router, and quantifies its scope ('same 5,724 tools, same arguments, same response shape'). It also distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by emphasizing the experimental edge, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 usage signal: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also frames the beta's purpose—results are compared against the stable router—and clarifies this is not a fallback but a full working router, preventing misuse.

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