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

The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it is an experimental edge with candidate routing improvements enabled live, currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly because no candidate is active, and it falls back to nothing as a fully working router. This clearly sets expectations for dynamic behavior.

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 somewhat long but every sentence carries relevant information about beta status, routing behavior, current state, and usage. The most important scoping detail, 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx,' comes near the middle rather than the start, but the opening still front-loads the core identity.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by referencing the same response shape as ask_pipeworx and the same arguments. It also covers the experimental nature, current parity with the stable version, and fallback behavior. It assumes familiarity with ask_pipeworx but is sufficiently complete for an agent operating in this tool family.

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 baseline applies. The description says the tool takes the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, which is helpful context, but it adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond 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 identifies the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx and calls it a universal router with 5,798 tools, same arguments, and same response shape. This distinguishes it from the stable sibling but relies on the 'router' term and knowledge of ask_pipeworx to fully convey purpose.

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 explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when wanting the newest routing, establishing a clear use case. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the contrast between 'newest routing' and the stable router implies the alternative.

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