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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: experimental candidate routing may or may not be active, the current no-candidate state, and the explicit note that there is no fallback. This is strong transparency for an experimental router.

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 front-loaded with the essential beta identity and immediate differentiation from ask_pipeworx. It is slightly wordy with the specific retirement date and repeated emphasis that it is a full working router, but every sentence contributes useful 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 complex universal router with no output schema, the description compensates by explicitly stating the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx and that the same 5,724 tools are reachable. It also clarifies current behavior and fallback semantics. It still relies on knowledge of ask_pipeworx for the exact response shape, but the pointer is concrete and sufficient in context.

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 description coverage is 100% and every parameter is documented as an alias for 'question'. The description only reiterates 'same arguments' without adding new semantic detail, so it stays at the baseline rather than improving on the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: it is a beta universal router identical to ask_pipeworx with candidate routing improvements. It explicitly distinguishes from ask_pipeworx ('candidate routing improvements enabled live') and from ask_pipeworx_grounded by pointing to the 'newest routing' use case.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and clarifies results are compared against the stable router. It does not enumerate when not to use it or mention grounded alternatives, so it misses full exclusion guidance.

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