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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that candidate routing improvements may be live, that none is currently active, that the last candidate was retired on outcome evidence, and that this is a full working router rather than a fallback shim. This is substantive behavioral context.

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 four sentences each carry distinct information: what it is, current experimental state, how to use it, and that it is not a fallback. It is front-loaded with the identity and scoped with the current-state note.

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 schema covers all six parameters and the tool is defined by identity to ask_pipeworx, the description covers what the agent needs: same call contract, current behavior, and experimental risk. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit 'same response shape' statement.

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 all parameters are already documented as aliases for 'question', so the description does not need to add param-level detail. It only notes that the tool takes the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, which is consistent but adds no new parameter semantics.

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' and immediately identifies it as a universal router with the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape. This clearly differentiates it from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling while stating what it does.

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 says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is desired, and explains that results are compared against the stable router. This gives both the trigger condition and the relationship to the primary alternative.

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