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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable transparency about the beta instability, live candidate routing changes, the current lack of an active candidate, and the fact that it does not fall back to anything. This goes beyond what annotations provide without contradicting 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?

The description is dense but well-organized, front-loading the beta relationship and then providing status, usage instruction, and a clarifying non-fallback guarantee. Every sentence adds meaningful information and there is no obvious 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?

For a high-complexity universal router with no output schema, the description covers the key context: behavior relative to the stable tool, current experimental status, usage guidance, and an explicit reassurance that it is fully functional. It references the same response shape as ask_pipeworx rather than detailing it, which is acceptable given sibling lookup but leaves some response-format ambiguity.

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%, so the schema already fully documents all six parameters and their aliases. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond saying the tool takes the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, which is not needed given the high schema coverage.

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 the tool as a beta variant of ask_pipeworx, a universal router over 5,743 tools, and explicitly states it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It also distinguishes itself from the stable router by its experimental routing candidates, making its purpose and differentiation concrete.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'when you want the newest routing' and states it should be used exactly like ask_pipeworx. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like ask_pipeworx_grounded, so it lacks exclusionary guidance.

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