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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses that candidate routing improvements may be active live, that none is active as of 2026-07-26, and that it is a full working router rather than a fallback. This adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting the annotations.

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 dense but purposeful: it front-loads the beta relationship and identity, then explains current status and usage. The retired-candidate date is an extra detail, but it supports the transparency about why the tool currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly.

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 router with no output schema, the description provides enough context: what it is, how it relates to ask_pipeworx, current candidate status, and that it is fully functional. It does not describe the response shape, but the reference to 'same response shape as ask_pipeworx' covers that by linking to a known sibling.

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 every parameter is documented as an alias for 'question', so the description does not need to add parameter details. The phrase 'same arguments as ask_pipeworx' slightly reinforces the schema but adds no new semantic meaning.

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 identifies the tool as the beta version of ask_pipeworx and an identical universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape, which is a specific enough purpose. It differentiates it from the stable ask_pipeworx by noting candidate routing improvements, though it does not explicitly contrast it with ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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 a clear usage condition: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and explains results are compared against the stable router. It also clarifies the current state (no active candidate, so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly), but it does not spell out when not to use it or name alternatives beyond ask_pipeworx.

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