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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about live candidate routing improvements and the current inactive state, and clarifies it is a fully working router rather than a fallback.

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 beta definition and each sentence adds information. The 'Falls back to nothing' phrase is slightly confusing, but overall it is well-structured and not overly verbose.

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?

It covers purpose, current status, relationship to the stable router, and usage conditions. Although it doesn't spell out the response shape, it references ask_pipeworx's shape, which is sufficient given the simple schema and annotations.

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 documents the question parameter plus aliases. The description only says 'same arguments' without adding meaning, so it does not significantly expand on 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 explicitly states this is a beta version of ask_pipeworx and an identical universal router with the same 5,908 tools, arguments, and response shape. It clearly distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by its experimental edge.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also names the stable router as the alternative and notes how results are compared.

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