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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the tool's beta status, that no candidate is currently active, that results are compared against the stable router, and that there is no fallback — 'this IS a full working router, just the experimental edge'. This gives the agent a precise understanding of the tool's current behavior and safety profile.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the key facts about being a beta, identical router. It contains some detail, such as the retirement date, that may be housekeeping rather than essential, but it remains reasonably concise and every substantial trait is covered.

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 complex universal router with no output schema, the description adequately explains its relationship to ask_pipeworx, its current inactive-candidate state, and its experimental nature. It does not describe the actual response shape, but it explicitly defers to ask_pipeworx ('same response shape'), which provides sufficient grounding for a caller already familiar with the stable tool.

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 parameters with 100% coverage, including aliases q, text, and input. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond confirming the arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, which is useful context but does not elevate beyond the schema baseline.

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 variant of ask_pipeworx with the same universal routing behavior, explicitly stating 'identical universal router (same 5,908 tools, same arguments, same response shape)'. It distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx by its purpose: an experimental edge that may have candidate routing improvements, while clarifying that it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly.

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 wanting the newest routing and names ask_pipeworx as the stable comparator. It does not fully spell out when to prefer ask_pipeworx stable over this beta variant, but it clearly frames this as the experimental choice and confirms it is a functional router.

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