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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable context by disclosing the current state (no active candidate, last retired on 2026-07-26) and the experimental edge behavior, which exceeds what annotations convey.

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 moderately long but front-loaded with the key beta relationship and includes necessary current-state and usage information. The final sentence about no fallback is somewhat redundant with 'full working router' but does reinforce the operational reality.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter schema, safety annotations, and the explicit statement that it is identical to ask_pipeworx, the description adequately covers behavior and current state. It does not define what the underlying router does, but this is an acceptable reference to a sibling 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%, so the schema fully documents the question parameter and its aliases. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond noting 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which is a reference rather than additional semantic detail.

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 states the tool is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same 5,798 tools and response shape. It explicitly names the sibling it derives from, making its function and differentiation immediately apparent.

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 explicit guidance to use it 'exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and clarifies that results are compared against the stable router. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it, leaving the exclusion to inference from the beta/stable contrast.

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