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

On top of annotations declaring read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds valuable context: candidate routing improvements are enabled live only when under test, none is active right now, and the tool is a full working router with no fallback. This gives the agent an accurate picture of its experimental-yet-functional 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?

The description is well-structured: it fronts the beta relationship and core scope, then states active candidate status, current equivalence to stable, and usage guidance. The third sentence reinforces that it is not a degraded tool, which is useful, though a few clauses could be tightened without losing information.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description covers the response gap by stating it has the same response shape as ask_pipeworx. It also explains current status, equivalence, and routing intent. It relies on the agent knowing ask_pipeworx for full output detail, but for a beta alias that is reasonable and 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?

With schema description coverage at 100%, the schema already documents the question parameter and its aliases, so the description adds no additional parameter detail beyond noting that arguments match ask_pipeworx. This is adequate but not a source of extra meaning; the baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx, calls it a universal router, and specifies it uses the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape. This differentiates it from the stable tool and from ask_pipeworx_grounded by framing it as the experimental edge.

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?

The description explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is desired, and clarifies that results are compared against the stable router. It also notes that no candidate is currently active, so behavior currently matches ask_pipeworx, but it does not give an explicit when-not-to-use condition such as 'prefer stable in production.'

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