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

Annotations already provide readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context: candidate routing improvements enabled live, no candidate active as of a specific date, exact matching with ask_pipeworx when no candidate is active, and a guarantee that this is a full working router with no fallback. This is substantial value beyond the 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?

The description is front-loaded with the tool's identity and current behavior, and each sentence adds useful context such as live candidate testing, current parity with ask_pipeworx, and the no-fallback guarantee. There is minor redundancy in saying 'identical' and then 'matches ask_pipeworx exactly' and 'use it exactly like ask_pipeworx,' but the text remains efficient.

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 single-required-parameter router with rich annotations, the description sufficiently covers current behavior, usage guidance, experimental status, and comparison to the stable router. It delegates response shape to ask_pipeworx rather than explaining it, which is reasonable given the sibling tool is available, but a bit more standalone detail would make it fully 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?

The input schema documents the required 'question' parameter and all five aliases with 100% coverage. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond referring to 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, so the schema carries the burden and the 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx and as a universal router with the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes it from the stable sibling by its experimental/candidate status, though it leans on the sibling's name rather than defining the core behavior fully standalone.

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 you want the newest routing, and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It provides useful context about the current no-active-candidate state, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it compares to ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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