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

The description discloses that this is an experimental edge, that a candidate may be active at some times, that none is currently active, and that it is a fully functional router rather than a fallback stub. These behavioral details go well beyond the annotations and give the agent an accurate picture of runtime variability.

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 somewhat long but well organized: it opens with what the tool is, explains current behavior, gives usage guidance, and clarifies that it is not a fallback. The inclusion of specific details like tool counts and dates is useful for transparency, though a few phrases are slightly redundant.

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 a single required parameter and fully documented aliases, the description is more than sufficient. It clarifies the experimental nature, current state, response-shape equivalence, and invocation expectation, leaving no material ambiguity for an agent deciding to call 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 description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond saying the arguments match ask_pipeworx. The schema already documents the question parameter and its aliases, so the description neither improves nor harms parameter understanding.

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 the tool as a beta variant of ask_pipeworx and a universal router with the same scope and arguments. It distinguishes itself from its siblings by explaining that it runs candidate routing improvements live and 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 you want the newest routing,' providing a clear selection criterion. It explains the evaluation context against the stable router, though it does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it in favor of other siblings.

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