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

Discloses the live experimental nature: candidate routing improvements are enabled whenever one is under test, and currently no candidate is active so behavior matches ask_pipeworx exactly. This goes beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations and adds useful context about potential behavior changes.

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 moderately sized but contains confusing phrasing such as 'Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router' which is ambiguous and could mislead. The first sentence front-loads the key purpose, but the redundancy and odd 'fallback' phrase hurt clarity.

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 tool with no output schema and full parameter annotation, the description covers the current candidate state, usage conditions, and relationship to the stable router. The ambiguous 'fallback' statement and lack of elaboration on routing behavior prevent a perfect score, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide whether to invoke it.

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 covers all six parameters with a description for the required 'question' parameter and its aliases. The tool description adds only that it uses 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which does not meaningfully enhance parameter understanding beyond the 100% schema coverage.

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?

Clearly identifies itself as a beta version of ask_pipeworx with the same universal-router functionality, explicitly naming the same 5,801 tools, arguments, and response shape. Slightly vague in that 'universal router' isn't elaborated, but it distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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?

Tells the agent to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when wanting the newest routing, and states that results are compared against the stable router. This gives an explicit trigger condition, though it does not clarify when to prefer it over ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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