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

Beyond the read-only, idempotent, open-world annotations, the description adds important behavioral context: it is a live experimental edge, candidates are enabled only when under test, and there is no degraded fallback—it is a full working router. The explicit 'falls back to nothing' statement prevents agents from assuming a safety net. This goes beyond what the annotations alone disclose.

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 information-packed, covering identity, current status, usage, experimental behavior, and fallback in a compact form. The first sentence is somewhat semicolon-heavy and could be easier to parse, but every sentence earns its place and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key operational facts: how it relates to ask_pipeworx, what its current behavior is, when candidate changes are active, and that it is not a stub. It tells the agent the input is a natural-language question and points to ask_pipeworx for exact usage parity. Nothing critical is missing for reliable invocation.

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%, with all six parameters documented as aliases for 'question'. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond noting that arguments match ask_pipeworx, which is marginal. Since the schema already carries the full semantic burden, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific purpose: it is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router over 5,724 tools with the same arguments and response shape. It distinguishes itself from its stable sibling by noting candidate routing improvements are enabled live. This gives an agent a clear identity for the tool rather than relying on the title alone.

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 tells the agent when to select this tool: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also clarifies the current state—no candidate is active, so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly—and notes that results are compared against the stable router. This is actionable routing guidance, not just a vague context.

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