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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations, the description discloses that candidate routing improvements are enabled live, that the last candidate was retired on outcome evidence, that the tool 'falls back to nothing' but is a 'full working router,' and that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. This gives a clear picture of an experimental edge without contradicting any annotation.

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?

Four sentences, each with distinct content: identity/parity, current state, usage guidance, and fallback clarification. Identity is front-loaded, but the dated retirement note ('2026-07-26') will decay, and 'matches ask_pipeworx exactly' is effectively stated twice.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, rich annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), and a sibling reference for the response shape, the description covers identity, safety, usage timing, and current state. The main gap is that the response shape is only defined relationally to ask_pipeworx rather than described directly, though that is recoverable from the sibling 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — the schema documents 'question' and all five aliases (query, q, prompt, text, input) — so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond noting the beta takes 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which is a lightweight parity confirmation rather than new 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' and a 'universal router' covering 5,718 tools, with explicit differentiation from the stable sibling. It clearly conveys the experimental-edge nature, though the purpose is defined relationally — it never states in standalone terms that it answers natural-language questions — which keeps it just below the top tier.

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 when-to-use condition — 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' — and names the stable router as the comparison/merge alternative. It also discloses the current state (no active candidate, so behavior matches ask_pipeworx), but it never states when NOT to use it and does not mention ask_pipeworx_grounded as another sibling option.

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