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

Adds substantial beyond-annotation context: identical interface to ask_pipeworx, live candidate behavior only when a candidate is under test, the specific current state (no candidate active since 2026-07-26), and the fact that this is a full working router rather than a fallback wrapper. This complements the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations without contradicting them.

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 front-loaded with the core beta relationship and current state, and each sentence contributes useful information. The final sentence is slightly emphatic after the first sentence has already established that this is a real router, but it does clarify the no-fallback guarantee.

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 complex universal router with no output schema, the description covers the behavioral state, relationship to ask_pipeworx, how to invoke it, and safety profile through annotations. It does not expand the response shape, but explicitly defers to ask_pipeworx's shape, which is adequate for correct invocation.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with every parameter (question, q, text, input, query, prompt) already documented as the natural-language question or an alias. The description only adds 'same arguments as ask_pipeworx' and does not deepen the semantics of any individual parameter, so the schema carries the burden.

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?

States a specific resource and role: a beta universal router identical to ask_pipeworx with candidate routing improvements. It differentiates itself from the stable sibling and explains it is the experimental edge with the same 5,908 tools and response shape.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and names the stable router as the comparison point. It does not spell out a strict exclusion such as 'use stable for production-critical tasks,' but the 'experimental edge' label and no-active-candidate state make the intended context clear.

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