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 only active 'whenever one is under test', that none is currently active (with a retirement date), and that it is a full working router rather than a fallback stub. This gives useful behavioral context for an experimental edge tool.

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 carrying distinct information: definition, live state, usage instruction, and fallback clarification. It is somewhat dense with parenthetical detail, but nothing is redundant and the key decision information appears early.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by stating the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx. It covers beta status, current active candidate, how to use, and experimental purpose, so an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and set expectations.

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 documents the required 'question' parameter and all five aliases at 100% coverage, so the description need not repeat them. It references 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx but adds no meaning beyond the schema; 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?

Description names the tool as the beta version of ask_pipeworx, defines it as a universal router covering the same 5,718 tools with the same arguments and response shape, and explicitly contrasts it with the stable ask_pipeworx router. The current no-candidate state is stated, so an agent understands exactly what this tool is.

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 instructs 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and explains that results are compared with the stable router. It does not discuss when to prefer ask_pipeworx_grounded or other siblings, but the primary alternative is clearly named and the selection condition is given.

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