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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds significant context: candidate routing improvements are enabled live only when under test, no candidate is currently active (retired 2026-07-26), and it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It also discloses that there is no fallback—it is a full working router—which removes ambiguity about failure modes.

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 three sentences and front-loads the core identity ('Beta version of ask_pipeworx'). It covers identity, current status, usage guidance, and fallback semantics. There is minor redundancy—'identical universal router' and 'this currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly' overlap, and 'Falls back to nothing' plus 'this IS a full working router' restate the same point—but overall each sentence earns its place.

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 simple six-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the experimental nature, current behavior, usage guidance, and full functionality. It references the same response shape as ask_pipeworx, so an agent familiar with that sibling has everything needed. A minor gap is not describing what happens when a candidate is active beyond 'enabled live,' but that is adequately implied.

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 in the input schema (question plus five aliases). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond saying the tool takes 'the same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which is redundant. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full burden for parameter meaning.

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 identifies the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx, explicitly calling it a 'universal router' with the same 5,724 tools and same response shape. It clearly differentiates itself from the stable sibling ask_pipeworx by its experimental routing improvements and live-testing status, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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 gives an explicit usage condition: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also explains the purpose (results compared against the stable router to decide merges) and clarifies that it is a fully functional router, not a fallback. It stops short of explicitly stating when not to use it (e.g., for stable/production needs), but the experimental edge is clear.

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