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 established. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the experimental candidate-testing behavior, the temporal state (last candidate retired 2026-07-26), results being compared against the stable router, and the explicit 'falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router' guarantee that preempts a likely misconception.

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 and scope, current experimental state, usage guidance with alternative, and fallback clarification. The beta distinction is front-loaded. Slightly dense, but nothing is redundant and the temporary-state disclosure is essential rather than filler.

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 high-complexity tool (router over 5,798 tools) with no output schema, the description covers identity, current operational state, when to use it, and the no-fallback guarantee, while pointing to ask_pipeworx for response shape. It is complete enough because it deliberately defers details to a known sibling; a concrete example of routing behavior would be the only meaningful addition.

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%, with all six parameters documented as aliases for the single required 'question' parameter. The description references 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which is a useful cross-reference, but it adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource: it is a universal router over 5,798 tools, explicitly identified as the beta variant of ask_pipeworx. It differentiates itself from its sibling by naming the candidate-routing improvement mechanism, so an agent can distinguish it from ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded without opening schemas.

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 says when to use it ('when you want the newest routing'), names the stable alternative (ask_pipeworx), and clarifies the current state of behavioral equivalence because no candidate is active. It does not enumerate exclusions or other alternatives like ask_pipeworx_grounded, but the primary routing decision is well covered.

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