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

The description is highly transparent: it discloses that no candidate is currently active, that the tool currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, that it is a full working router, and that it 'Falls back to nothing.' The annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds useful live-state context 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 concise and front-loaded with the beta identity and relationship to ask_pipeworx. It includes useful specifics like the tool count, current inactive status, and comparison role. The date of the last retirement is mildly extra but supports the transparency about the current state.

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 covers current behavior, usage, and the experimental nature of the tool. Because there is no output schema and the description only says 'same response shape' without describing that shape, an agent must infer output details from ask_pipeworx. Still, the explicit pointer to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx makes this adequate.

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%, with all six parameters documented as aliases of 'question.' The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond saying the tool takes the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, which is sufficient given the schema already defines all aliases clearly.

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 identifies the tool as a beta variant of ask_pipeworx and explicitly calls it a 'universal router' with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes it from the stable router by noting 'candidate routing improvements enabled live whenever one is under test.' However, it doesn't independently explain what the router does, relying on the agent's understanding of ask_pipeworx.

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 gives an explicit usage instruction: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also references the stable router as the comparison baseline, which implies the alternative. It stops short of stating when not to use this beta version, such as when stability is required.

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