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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the tool is a live experimental routing edge, that candidate routing improvements are enabled only when under test, that currently no candidate is active so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and that it falls back to nothing — it is a fully working router. This gives the agent a precise behavioral model not present in structured 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 information-dense but every sentence serves a purpose: defining the beta scope, clarifying current state, giving usage direction, and dispelling the notion that it is a stub. Front-loaded with the most important identity statement and no wasted wording.

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 that annotations declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the schema fully documents the single semantic parameter, the description covers all context an agent needs. It even addresses the output shape by stating it matches ask_pipeworx exactly, compensating for the lack of an output schema.

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%, and the schema already documents all six parameters as equivalent aliases for question. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond saying it uses the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, so the baseline score 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 a beta universal router with the same 5,718 tools, arguments, and response shape as ask_pipeworx. It differentiates itself from the stable sibling by describing itself as the experimental edge with candidate routing improvements. This makes selection and distinction from ask_pipeworx straightforward.

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 wanting the newest routing, and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It does not explicitly state when to avoid it or choose ask_pipeworx_grounded, but the 'when you want the newest routing' condition is clear enough for most usage.

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