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

The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description adds useful context: this is a live, full working router, not a fallback stub, and may differ from stable when a candidate is under test. It also clarifies that no candidate is currently active, so behavior currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly.

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 well-ordered and packs the core definition, current status, and usage instruction into a compact form. The specific retirement date and 'outcome evidence' clause are slightly more transient and detailed than strictly necessary, but they do not make the description bloated.

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?

It specifies the tool universe, argument parity, response parity, experimental status, and current equivalence to stable, which is enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. The exact response shape is not spelled out, but referencing ask_pipeworx provides a sufficient anchor.

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 already fully documents all six parameters, including the aliases for question, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. The claim that it accepts the same arguments as ask_pipeworx adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 unambiguously that this is the beta universal router over 5,728 tools, with identical arguments and response shape to ask_pipeworx, and explains what differs: candidate routing improvements. It clearly differentiates from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling.

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 that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. It lacks an explicit when-not statement, such as preferring the stable version for production stability.

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