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

Discloses behavior annotations cannot: live candidate routing changes under test, the current no-op state with a retirement date, and the explicit 'falls back to nothing' assurance that it is a full working router. This is rich context beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations and contradicts none of 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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct information: identity, current candidate state, when to use, and fallback assurance. Front-loaded with the core identity and free of 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?

Covers identity, current behavior, usage condition, and operational status for a complex universal router with no output schema. The only deference is the response shape, which is explicitly declared identical to ask_pipeworx — an actionable reference even though the shape itself is never described.

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% — all six parameters are documented aliases for question — so the baseline is 3. The description adds only 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which is mildly useful but not necessary given the schema already fully documents the parameter surface.

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?

States it is the beta of ask_pipeworx, a universal router over 5,798 tools, and distinguishes it from the stable sibling by the candidate-routing-improvements mechanism. The 'beta' label plus the explicit comparison to ask_pipeworx gives an agent a clear identity to select on.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' Names the stable router as the alternative and explains results feed a merge decision, but stops short of stating a when-not-to-use condition (e.g., preferring stable routing in production).

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