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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: candidate routing improvements may be live, no candidate is active as of a specific date, and it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It also dispels a potential misunderstanding by stating this is a full working router, not a fallback stub.

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?

Every sentence contributes a distinct fact: beta identity, current candidate state, usage instruction, and no-fallback clarification. The identity and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and specifics like the 5,798 tool count and retirement date are relevant rather than padding.

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 single-required-parameter natural-language router, the description covers tool identity, scope, current behavior, and relationship to the stable sibling. Return-value format is not spelled out, but 'same response shape' delegates to ask_pipeworx and there is no output schema to reconcile, so an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 required 'question' field is documented along with all five aliases. The description only mentions that arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, which is useful context but adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 this as the beta sibling of ask_pipeworx and states that it is a 'universal router' with 'same 5,798 tools, same arguments, same response shape.' This gives an agent a concrete sense of the tool and its relationship to the stable version. It stops short of fully defining the action in its own terms, relying somewhat on the ask_pipeworx brand.

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 directs the agent to 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing,' which is a clear when-to-use condition. It also says results are compared against the stable router, implying an evaluation use case. It does not explicitly tell the agent when to avoid this variant or prefer ask_pipeworx/grounded, but the beta framing makes the intended context clear.

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