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

Annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: exactly what makes it beta, the fact that no candidate is currently active, that it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and that it is a full working router rather than a fallback stub. It clearly discloses the experimental edge without contradicting the 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 front-loaded with the most important identity and routing-state information, then gives explicit usage guidance, then clarifies what it is not. Each sentence adds distinct value, including the final clarification that it is a full working router despite being experimental.

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 simple single-required-parameter tool with rich annotations and a fully documented schema, the description provides everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly: what it is, how it relates to plain ask_pipeworx, current routing state, intended usage, and behavioral expectations. No output schema exists, but the description confirms the response shape matches ask_pipeworx.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% and every parameter is documented as an alias for question. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond noting 'same arguments,' but the schema already carries the full burden, so a 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 clearly identifies this as the beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It explicitly distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx by calling out the experimental routing improvements, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 explicit usage direction: use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and notes that results are compared against the stable router. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the experimental framing implies stable ask_pipeworx is the safer alternative.

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