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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavior context: the routing logic changes live when a candidate is under test, results are logged and compared against the stable router, and there is no fallback because this is a full working router. It does not describe error handling or latency differences.

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 beta relationship and the 'no candidate active right now' caveat are front-loaded where an agent needs them. There is mild redundancy — the 'identical to ask_pipeworx' point is made twice (once up front, once via 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly') — but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly points at ask_pipeworx for the response shape and explains the varying-routing behavior, which is the one thing that differs from the stable sibling. It stops short of describing what a routed answer looks like or how results differ in practice, a minor gap for a nine-parameter tool.

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% and all nine parameters (including the seven question aliases and the 'packs' scoping/failure semantics) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond the schema, so baseline 3 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?

Identifies this as a beta clone of ask_pipeworx and a 'universal router' with the same 7,138 tools and arguments, which lets an agent distinguish it from ask_pipeworx_grounded and discover_tools. The core action is described by reference to a sibling ('identical universal router') rather than stated on its own terms, so some inference is required about what actually comes back.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also warns that no candidate is active right now, so the tool currently offers no advantage — a useful de facto reason to prefer the stable sibling. The exclusion ('use ask_pipeworx for stable routing') is only implied, not stated.

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