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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds substantial behavioral context: candidate routing improvements are enabled live whenever one is under test, no candidate is currently active, the last was retired on a specific date, and it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. This transparency about dynamic, time-dependent behavior is valuable and directly supports correct agent expectations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: it defines what the tool is, its relationship to ask_pipeworx, the current candidate state, usage guidance, and what it does not fall back to. Key information is front-loaded in the opening colon-structured sentence. It is appropriately sized for a tool with this much contextual nuance.

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?

Given the tool's complexity as a universal router with 5,908 tools and no output schema, the description covers all critical operational aspects: identical interface to ask_pipeworx, candidate-state dynamics, current exact-match behavior, intended usage, and the fact that it is a full functioning router. Return-shape expectations are satisfied by referencing the same response shape as ask_pipeworx. This is complete for an agent deciding whether and how 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents question and its aliases q, text, and input. The description adds that the tool takes the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, which is useful for compatibility but does not explain individual parameter semantics. This meets the baseline of relying on the schema for parameter details, with no significant additional meaning provided.

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 clearly identifies this as a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same 5,908 tools, arguments, and response shape. It is specific about the experimental edge role and distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx by the live candidate-routing behavior. The purpose is unambiguous and well-differentiated from its primary 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?

The description explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and clarifies that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. It also dispels the potential misconception that it falls back to anything by stating it is a full working router. It does not explicitly enumerate exclusions such as 'do not use when stability is required,' but the 'experimental edge' framing implies this.

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