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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description's additional context is valuable: it discloses live candidate routing improvements, the current absence of an active candidate, exact parity with ask_pipeworx, and that it is a complete router rather than a fallback. This goes well beyond the structured hints without contradicting them.

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 but every clause earns its place: beta identity, parity with ask_pipeworx, current experimental status, usage guidance, comparison purpose, and fallback clarification. The key distinction is front-loaded, and the end resolves a likely misconception.

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 tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: it tells the agent how to call it, what it is, what to expect behaviorally, and that the response shape matches ask_pipeworx. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 description says the tool uses the same arguments and response shape as ask_pipeworx, which is helpful routing context, but it adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline of 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 the beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router, and distinguishes it from the stable sibling by emphasizing it is the experimental edge. It uses specific language: 'identical universal router' and names ask_pipeworx as the baseline, 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 explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is desired, and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It also clarifies that it does not fall back to anything but is a full working router, preventing misuse as a wrapper.

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