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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral context: candidate routing improvements may be live, no candidate is currently active, the tool fully works with no fallback, and behavior currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. This goes well beyond 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 information-dense and front-loaded with the core identity: beta version of ask_pipeworx with identical behavior. Every sentence contributes either current state, usage guidance, or a fallback clarification, with no fluff.

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-question input and no output schema, the description is complete: it states the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx, explains the current experimental state, and clarifies that this is a fully working router, not a stub. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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?

All six parameters are fully documented in the input schema as aliases for question, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description only says 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx and adds no new syntax, formatting, or usage details beyond what the schema provides.

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 this as a beta universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape as ask_pipeworx, while adding the experimental routing distinction. It explicitly names the sibling stable version, so an agent can tell what this tool is and how it differs.

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 gives clear guidance: use it like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, with results compared against the stable router to decide merges. It names the relevant alternative and provides a positive use condition, though it does not explicitly state a 'do not use when' exclusion for the stable version.

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