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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: candidate routing improvements may be live, none are active right now, and this is a full working router rather than a fallback. That prevents an agent from assuming degraded behavior or a mere proxy to the stable tool.

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 compact and front-loads the tool's identity and current state. Details like the 5,743 tools and the retirement date add specificity to the experimental status without bloating the description excessively.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description references the same response shape as ask_pipeworx and instructs identical usage, giving the agent a concrete reference point. It also covers current candidate status and the absence of fallback behavior, which is enough for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke it.

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 coverage is 100%, and every parameter is already documented as an alias for the question. The description only adds that it accepts the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, which does not meaningfully extend the parameter-level meaning provided by the schema.

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 and a universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It also distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx by emphasizing the experimental routing edge, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 the newest routing is desired and notes that no candidate is currently active, so it matches the stable router now. It does not state formal exclusions such as avoiding it in production, but it provides clear routing context and names the stable alternative.

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