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

Annotations already declare it read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context: beta status, live candidate toggling, absence of any active candidate, equivalence with stable, results comparison for merge decisions, and 'falls back to nothing' as a full working router. This is rich behavioral disclosure with no contradiction.

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 key beta-versus-stable distinction and uses short, scannable sentences. The parenthetical retirement date and repeated equivalence wording are a little more verbose than strictly necessary, but each sentence contributes useful context.

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 no-output-schema beta router, it covers interface parity, current runtime state, usage instruction, experimental behavior, and failure mode. The reference to 'same response shape' and 'same arguments' leverages the sibling tool definition, so nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%: every parameter is an explicitly documented alias for 'question', so the description does not need to add parameter details. It adds only the pointer that arguments match ask_pipeworx, which is useful but not necessary for understanding this 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 identifies a specific function: a beta universal router that mirrors ask_pipeworx with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape. It explicitly frames the experimental 'candidate routing improvements' angle, which distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling.

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 direct usage directive: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and names the stable sibling as the comparison baseline. It could add an explicit 'use stable unless you want to test routing changes' exclusion, but the current-state note ('currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly') conveys the practical context.

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