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

The annotations already establish read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds meaningful live context: candidate routing improvements are enabled only when under test, none is active currently, and there is no fallback—this is a full working router. This gives useful transparency beyond the structured fields.

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 longer than strictly necessary but each sentence carries information about current status, behavior, and usage. The opening sentence front-loads the key distinguishing facts, and there is little 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 routing tool, the description explains its experimental nature, current equivalence to the stable version, usage context, and fallback behavior. It references the same response shape as ask_pipeworx but does not describe that shape directly; since there is no output schema, this is a minor gap but not critical.

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 coverage is 100%, with every parameter documented as an alias for 'question'. The description only says 'same arguments' and does not add new semantic detail, so it matches the baseline for a fully covered schema rather than elevating it.

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 version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with 5,743 tools, and explains how it differs from the stable version (candidate routing improvements). It goes beyond a tautology and gives the agent a concrete sense of the tool's role, although it relies on the reader understanding the term 'universal router'.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also notes that no candidate is currently active, so it currently behaves like the stable tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like ask_pipeworx_grounded or say when not to use it, but the guidance is clear enough.

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