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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: candidates are enabled and retired live, no candidate is active as of a specific date (2026-07-26), behavior currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and it 'falls back to nothing' — it is a full working router, not a stub. This is precisely the kind of contextual transparency an agent needs for an experimental tool.

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, each earning its place: identity, current operational state, usage rule, and a reassurance against the natural assumption that a beta might be a hollow shell. The most decision-relevant fact (it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly) is front-loaded. Slightly long, but the density of distinct information justifies the length.

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 universal router with full schema documentation, rich safety annotations, and no output schema, the description covers identity, current state, when to prefer it, and its functional guarantee. The response shape is defined only by reference to the sibling ('same response shape'), which is acceptable for a clone-style tool but means an agent unfamiliar with ask_pipeworx would need to resolve that reference.

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% — all six parameters (question plus five aliases) are fully documented in the schema with their alias relationships. The description adds no per-parameter semantics beyond 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, so the baseline of 3 applies appropriately.

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 precise identity: 'identical universal router (same 5,798 tools, same arguments, same response shape)' — a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded) by being the beta/experimental edge of the same routing function.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It names the stable alternative and explains the comparison workflow that justifies the beta's existence. It stops short of an explicit 'when not to use' rule, but the stable-vs-beta contrast is clearly implied.

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