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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals the experimental nature, live candidate improvements, current no-active-candidate state, and the comparison process against the stable router. It also explicitly states there is no fallback — 'this IS a full working router' — which fully discloses behavioral expectations.

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 longer than average but every part contributes: beta status, exact relationship to ask_pipeworx, current state, usage, and behavior. The date and internal comparison detail are slightly granular but help explain the current match to the stable version, so there is no notable waste.

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 single required string parameter and rich annotations, the description is largely complete: it explains what it is, how to use it, its current state, and its output relationship to ask_pipeworx. Since there is no output schema, the only minor gap is that the response shape is referenced relative to ask_pipeworx rather than described directly, but for an agent with sibling context that is sufficient.

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 input schema already documents all six parameters with 100% coverage, including the five aliases for 'question'. The description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond saying the tool accepts the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, so the baseline score applies.

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 clearly identifies this as a beta version of ask_pipeworx and a universal router handling the same 5,798 tools with the same arguments and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx via the phrase 'when you want the newest routing' and confirms it is a full working router, so an agent can tell when to invoke it.

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?

It provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It implies the alternative is ask_pipeworx for stable routing and notes that no candidate is active right now, so the current behavior matches the stable version — strong when/when-not information.

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