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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses important behavioral context: candidate routing improvements are enabled live only when under test, no candidate is currently active, results are compared against the stable router, and this is a fully functional experimental edge with no fallback. This is valuable transparency about how the tool behaves and why it exists.

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 core identity ('Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router') and each subsequent sentence earns its place: current state, usage guidance, comparison purpose, and the no-fallback clarification. It is concise, well-organized, 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?

For a router tool with no output schema, the description explains the tool's role, current equivalence to ask_pipeworx, and how to use it. It references the same response shape and arguments, which is sufficient given the schema covers parameters. It does not describe the response structure in absolute terms, but the reference to ask_pipeworx plus the schema makes the tool callable and understandable.

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 the input schema already documents the 'question' parameter plus five aliases. The description adds only that the tool accepts 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which does not meaningfully enrich parameter understanding. Since the schema fully covers parameter semantics, 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 states a specific verb-resource pair: it is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router that accepts natural-language questions and routes to the same 5,743 tools. It explicitly differentiates itself from ask_pipeworx by noting candidate routing improvements and that it currently matches the stable version exactly. This makes its purpose and relationship to siblings clear.

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?

The description gives an explicit usage condition: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also names the stable alternative and clarifies that this is a full working router, not a fallback. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the condition and alternative are clear enough for an agent to select appropriately.

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