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

The description adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the tool's behavior is time-variable (candidate routing improvements may be live), the current state is pinned ('No candidate is active right now... 2026-07-26'), and it clarifies that it is a full working router with no fallback. This is exactly the kind of dynamic behavioral disclosure an agent needs.

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 with a logical flow: what it is, current state, how to use, and a reassurance about functionality. The retirement date is a valuable state pin, though phrases like 'on outcome evidence' add marginal density. Well front-loaded with the beta/identical framing.

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?

Given the annotations cover safety and the schema covers parameters, the description fills the important remaining gaps: variable behavior, current active state, and equivalence to the stable tool. It handles the missing output schema reasonably via 'same response shape' referencing ask_pipeworx, though a concrete statement of what the router returns would make it fully self-contained.

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%, so the schema already documents the parameters (question plus aliases q, text, input). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond 'same arguments' pointing to ask_pipeworx, which is a mild pointer but not new semantic content. 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 resource ('universal router' over 5,908 tools) and clearly differentiates from siblings by calling itself a beta version of ask_pipeworx with experimental routing. However, it never defines what the router actually does in plain terms — it relies on the reader already knowing ask_pipeworx's function — so the core purpose is indirect.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and notes results are compared against the stable router, which names the alternative and the selection condition. It does not explicitly state when-not to use it (e.g., 'prefer ask_pipeworx for stable behavior'), though that exclusion is strongly implied by 'Beta' and 'experimental edge'.

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