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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses the experimental nature, live enablement of candidate routing improvements, the recent retirement of the last candidate, and the comparison process against the stable router. It also explicitly states there is no fallback path, so the agent knows this is a fully functional router. This is rich behavioral context with no contradiction to 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 four sentences and every sentence adds unique value: identity, current experimental state, usage direction, and clarification that it is not a fallback. The key definition is front-loaded before the beta nuance. The density is appropriate for a tool whose main complexity is its relationship to the stable version.

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?

The description covers identity, current behavior, usage, and experimental comparison, and references the same response shape as ask_pipeworx, which is sufficient given the sibling context. It does not independently describe the exact response format, but no output schema exists and the stable sibling is available as a reference. This is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, with every property described as an alias for the required 'question' parameter, so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description only repeats that the tool takes the same arguments as ask_pipeworx and does not add meaningful details beyond what the input schema provides. 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 immediately identifies the tool as the beta version of ask_pipeworx and as an identical universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape. This clearly names the operation and differentiates the beta from the stable router via candidate routing improvements. It is easy for an agent to understand what this tool is and how it relates to its closest 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 an explicit usage condition: use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and notes that results are compared against the stable router. It also states that no candidate is currently active, so behavior currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and clarifies that this is a full working router rather than a fallback. This is clear when-to-use guidance with the stable sibling named as the alternative.

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