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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing that no candidate is currently active, that the last one was retired on a specific date, and that the tool currently behaves exactly like the stable router. It also clarifies that there is no fallback layer and that it is a fully working router despite being experimental.

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 efficient, front-loading the core identity and then covering current state, usage, and experimental context in a few sentences. The exact tool count, retire date, and fallback note all contribute operational value without redundancy.

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 is complete for a tool of this complexity: it covers what the tool is, its current live state, how to invoke it, how it compares to the stable router, and the safety profile via annotations. Referencing ask_pipeworx as the baseline is acceptable because it is a named sibling tool.

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 coverage is 100%, and all six parameters are documented as aliases for question. The description adds no further parameter-level detail beyond stating that arguments match ask_pipeworx, so the schema carries the parameter semantics and the description neither helps nor hurts.

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 a beta version of ask_pipeworx and as a universal router with the same tool surface and response shape. It distinguishes it from the stable router through candidate routing improvements and its experimental edge, though it never directly states that the tool answers questions by routing them.

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 to inform merges. It gives a clear selection context, though it does not explicitly name ask_pipeworx as the alternative for stable production use.

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