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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint annotations by disclosing time-varying behavior: live candidate routing improvements can be enabled at any moment, no candidate is currently active (retired 2026-07-26), so behavior currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly but may diverge later. It also clarifies that this is not a stub ('falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router'), which is critical for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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?

Four sentences, all earning their place: identity/scope, current experimental state, usage instruction, and fallback clarification. The critical scoping fact (beta of ask_pipeworx, identical router) is front-loaded, and the specific retirement date adds credible precision without bloat.

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 beta-variant tool with dynamic behavior, this description covers everything an agent needs: what it is, how it differs from stable, its current state, that it is fully functional, and its read-only safety profile via annotations. No output schema exists, but the description defers response shape to ask_pipeworx ('same response shape'), which is sufficient.

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 parameters (question, q, text, input, and others) are already documented in the schema itself. The description contributes only 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which is mild added meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full param-documentation burden.

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 states a specific function with a concrete verb and resource: a universal router routing questions across the same 5,718 tools as ask_pipeworx, with the same arguments and response shape. It differentiates itself from the sibling ask_pipeworx (stable) explicitly by labeling itself the beta/experimental version, and from ask_pipeworx_grounded by the router framing.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also references the alternative (the stable router whose results are compared against), giving the agent a meaningful selection condition. However, it never states a when-not-to-use condition or addresses the ask_pipeworx_grounded sibling, stopping just short of complete exclusion guidance.

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