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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses that it runs candidate routing improvements live only when under test, currently none are active (with a specific retirement date), and that results are compared against the stable router. It also explicitly states 'Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router', which is important behavioral context distinguishing it from a preview stub.

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 four sentences and front-loaded with the key identity ('Beta version of ask_pipeworx'). It includes useful specifics like tool count and a retirement date, though some details (e.g., exact date) may age quickly. Every sentence adds information—no filler—but it is slightly dense for a tool that could be summarized more tersely.

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 universal router with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains its purpose, status, usage, and relationship to siblings. It does not describe the response shape except by reference to ask_pipeworx ('same response shape'), which is acceptable given the sibling sibling exists but leaves an agent without prior knowledge of ask_pipeworx slightly underinformed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: all six parameters (q, text, input, query, prompt, question) are documented as aliases for question. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond saying 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, so the schema carries the full burden. This meets the baseline for high coverage but adds no extra semantic value.

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 states it is a 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx' and an 'identical universal router (same 5,798 tools, same arguments, same response shape)', which clearly identifies it as a routing tool distinct from the stable ask_pipeworx. It differentiates from siblings by emphasizing its experimental 'candidate routing improvements' status. However, the core function of 'ask_pipeworx' is not independently defined, relying on the sibling for full understanding.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing; results are compared against the stable router to decide what merges.' This gives a clear condition and names the alternative (ask_pipeworx). It also clarifies it is a full working router with no fallback, preventing misuse as a thin wrapper.

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