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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing live candidate routing tests, the current no-candidate state with a retirement date, exact behavioral match to the stable router, and the fact that this is a full working router rather than a degraded fallback. This is consistent with the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive annotations, so there is no contradiction.

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 definition and current status, and nearly every sentence adds useful behavioral or usage context. There is minor redundancy between 'identical universal router' and 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly,' but the overall length is justified by the operational detail.

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-question routing tool with rich annotations, the description covers current behavior, experimental purpose, and usage guidance well. It relies on ask_pipeworx for response-shape details rather than explaining the response format itself, which is acceptable but leaves a small gap if the agent does not already know the stable sibling.

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 all six parameters described, including the question field and its aliases. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; it correctly avoids repeating what the schema already documents.

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, an identical universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape. It explicitly frames itself as the experimental edge, which distinguishes it from the stable sibling ask_pipeworx without needing to open either schema.

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 gives a direct usage instruction: use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing. It names the stable alternative and explains that results are compared against the stable router for merge decisions, though it does not explicitly say 'use the stable version when you want to avoid experimental behavior.'

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