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

The description goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations by disclosing that candidate routing improvements may be active, that no candidate is currently active, that it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and that it is a full working router with no fallback. This is rich, honest, and immediately useful behavior 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 somewhat long but information-dense, and the key concept—'Beta version of ask_pipeworx'—is front-loaded. The specific retirement date and the no-fallback clarification add real value even if they could be tightened.

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 rich annotations and the reference to ask_pipeworx, the description covers purpose, usage, current state, and behavioral expectations well. There is no output schema and the description only says 'same response shape' without detailing what that shape is, but the explicit equivalence to ask_pipeworx makes this mostly sufficient.

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 documents 100% of parameters, with 'question' as the required field and all other parameters as aliases. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond saying it takes the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, so it stays at the schema-coverage baseline.

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 this as the beta version of ask_pipeworx and calls it an 'identical universal router' with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes the tool from the stable ask_pipeworx and the experimental edge, though it relies on the reader already understanding what ask_pipeworx does.

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 notes results are compared against the stable router. It names the alternative and gives a clear condition, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it, such as 'if you want the stable production router, use ask_pipeworx.'

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