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

The description reveals that routing candidates are enabled live when under test, that none is active now, and that results are compared against the stable router for merge decisions. It also preempts the misconception that this is merely a fallback by stating it 'Falls back to nothing' and is a 'full working router.' These traits go well beyond the read-only and idempotent 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?

Four sentences convey identity, current status, usage condition, and a key clarification with little fluff. There is some redundancy, such as 'identical' plus the parenthetical triple and 'Falls back to nothing' plus 'full working router,' but each sentence still adds useful behavioral or usage 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?

The description gives enough to decide when to call it and what to expect relationally: same tools, arguments, and response shape as ask_pipeworx, with no active candidate. Because there is no output schema, the response-shape reference relies on the sibling for exact detail, which is a small gap. Overall, for a simple question-routing tool with rich annotations, it is 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 schema covers all six parameters with explicit descriptions, including the alias relationship of q/text/input/query/prompt to question, so the description does not need to repeat them. It only refers generically to 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, adding no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies given full schema coverage.

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 opens by defining the tool as the 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx' and a 'universal router' with the same 5,743 tools and arguments, making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from the stable sibling as the experimental, candidate-enabled variant. The usage phrase 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx' confirms the resource and action.

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 states to use it 'exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing,' giving a clear condition for selection. It also notes that with no active candidate it currently matches ask_pipeworx, preventing unnecessary use. However, it does not mention ask_pipeworx_grounded or list exclusions, so it is clear but not comprehensive.

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