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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the beta nature, the current status (no active candidate), and that it is a full working router without fallback. This provides behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as the experimental edge and comparison behavior.

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 moderately long but every sentence serves a purpose: defining what it is, stating current state, giving usage guidance, and removing the misconception of a fallback. It is front-loaded with the core identity and maintains efficient structure without fluff.

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?

It covers purpose, current equivalence, usage, and clarifies it is a full router. It references the same response shape as ask_pipeworx, indirectly addressing output. Given the simple one-question input schema and strong safety annotations, it provides enough context for an agent to select and call it correctly, though it assumes familiarity with ask_pipeworx's responses.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%: all six parameters are aliases for 'question' and each is described. The description only adds that it has the 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which is generic. Since the schema already fully documents parameters, this is the baseline 3.

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 states this is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same 5,724 tools, arguments, and response shape. It explicitly says it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly and is a full working router. This distinguishes it from the stable sibling by its testing purpose, giving a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It also clarifies it is not a fallback but a full router. While it doesn't mention alternatives for when to use the stable version, the routing-criterion is clear and actionable.

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