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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that this is an experimental edge with candidate routing improvements enabled live, that no candidate is currently active, and that it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It also clarifies 'Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router,' preventing the misconception that it is a 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core definition, then current state, usage, and a clarifying note. Every sentence adds distinct information with no 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?

For a router with no output schema, the description provides the essential call context: it is a full working router, identical to ask_pipeworx currently, and safe per annotations. The required question parameter and aliases are fully covered by the schema, and the experimental status is clearly flagged.

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 the schema already documents question plus five aliases. The description only says 'same arguments' without adding parameter-level detail, so it does not improve on 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 opens with 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router' and specifies the exact scope: same 5,801 tools, same arguments, same response shape. This clearly identifies it as an experimental variant of the sibling ask_pipeworx and distinguishes it from other siblings.

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 instructs 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It names the stable alternative and gives a selection condition, though it does not enumerate when-not-to-use cases or mention ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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