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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful dynamic context: candidate routing improvements are enabled live when under test, no candidate is currently active, and this is a full working router with no fallback. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 tool's identity and purpose, then moves to usage and current status. Some redundancy exists—'identical' and 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly' overlap—but the details about the live candidate, retirement date, and no-fallback behavior earn their place. It is scannable and understandable.

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?

An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly: it works exactly like ask_pipeworx, takes the same arguments, currently has no active experimental candidate, and routes to the same set of tools. The input schema covers required parameters and aliases, and the description addresses the missing output schema by stating the response shape is identical. Minor additional detail about usage nuances would make it complete.

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 all parameters are documented aliases for the single required `question` parameter. The description only references 'same arguments' without adding syntax or format details, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool as a 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx' and an 'identical universal router' with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape. This states the verb, resource, and scope while distinguishing it from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling. The title is repetitive but the body adds substantive meaning.

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 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and explains that results are compared against the stable router. This gives a clear usage condition and names the stable alternative. It does not fully spell out 'when not to use', so it stops short of a 5.

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