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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations: live candidate status, the last candidate retired date, the identical response shape, and the reassurance that this is a full working router rather than a fallback stub. The 'falls back to nothing' phrase is slightly oblique but immediately qualified.

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 front-loaded with the beta identity and the core 'identical router' contract, then gives usage guidance and current operational state. It is slightly wordy around candidate retirement history, but every sentence contributes meaningful context for an agent deciding whether to call this beta variant.

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 beta duplicate of an existing tool, the description adequately covers missing output-schema information by referencing the same response shape as ask_pipeworx. It also clarifies that this is a complete working router. A fully self-contained description might explain the response shape, but the cross-reference to the stable sibling is sufficient given the tool's purpose.

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 each parameter documented as an alias for 'question', so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description adds only the cross-reference that this tool takes 'the same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which is helpful but not necessary for invoking it correctly.

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 the tool as the beta variant of ask_pipeworx: a universal router covering the same 5,798 tools, same arguments, and same response shape, with candidate routing improvements. This distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling and states its experimental edge without ambiguity.

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 explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is desired, and that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. It also notes the current state (no active candidate, so behavior matches ask_pipeworx exactly), giving the agent a clear when-to-use decision.

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