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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuinely useful context: candidate routing improvements are enabled live when under test, no candidate is currently active, and it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It also explicitly states the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx, which compensates for the lack of an output schema.

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 a simple one-liner but every sentence earns its place: it defines the variant, explains the current live state, gives usage instruction, and prevents a fallback misinterpretation. There is some minor redundancy between 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly' and 'No candidate is active right now,' but the structure is logical and front-loaded with the key identity statement.

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 variant tool whose semantics are identical to ask_pipeworx, the description provides the critical extra context: experimental status, live candidate behavior, current parity with stable, and response-shape equivalence. It relies on the agent knowing ask_pipeworx for underlying details, which is reasonable given the sibling relationship. No output schema exists, but the description explicitly points to the stable tool's response shape.

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 describes all six parameters with 100% coverage: `question` is the canonical parameter and the other five are documented aliases. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond saying the tool takes the same arguments as ask_pipeworx. Since the schema carries the full burden, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a beta version of ask_pipeworx, specifying it is an identical universal router with the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape. It differentiates it from the stable ask_pipeworx by its experimental, candidate-improvement nature. It could be slightly clearer about what the underlying universal router does, but the name, schema, and sibling context make the purpose reasonably unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when wanting the newest routing, directly naming the alternative and the condition for choosing it. It also clarifies that this is not a fallback — it is a full working router — and that results are compared against the stable router, which explains the beta context. This is strong, concrete usage guidance.

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