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

Annotations already mark it readOnly, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, and the description adds significant context: it is a full working router, not a stub; candidate routing improvements are live only when under test; currently no candidate is active; and it matches ask_pipeworx exactly right now. This goes well beyond the structured 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 a bit longer than strictly necessary but every sentence adds meaningful context: beta status, current equivalence, experimental intent, and the fact that it is fully functional. It is front-loaded with the core identity and avoids generic 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?

Given the complexity of a universal router and no output schema, the description compensates by stating the exact relationship to ask_pipeworx, the response shape parity, and the current stable-match state. It could have described the response format in more detail, but the reference to ask_pipeworx plus the explicit 'same response shape' makes it sufficient.

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 the question parameter and all aliases fully documented there. The description only says 'same arguments as ask_pipeworx,' which reinforces rather than expands on the schema, so 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?

Description states this is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router over 5,743 tools with the same arguments and response shape. It clearly distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded siblings by framing itself as the experimental routing edge.

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 to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and explains that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. It gives clear context but does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it or direct users to a stable alternative in production scenarios.

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