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 meaningful behavioral context beyond this: it is a live experimental edge, candidate routing improvements are enabled on the fly, and it 'falls back to nothing' — meaning it is a fully functional router, not a wrapper that degrades. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey.

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?

Four sentences, each supplying a distinct fact: identity, current experimental state, usage guidance, and reassurance that it is a full working router. The key differentiator ('identical universal router... same 5,724 tools') is front-loaded, and no sentence is wasted.

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?

The tool is a simple single-question router with six aliases, and the schema fully documents the parameter. Though there is no output schema, the description points to the stable sibling's 'same response shape', giving the agent a reference for return behavior. It also covers current routing state, fallback, and comparison purpose, leaving no material gaps.

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?

All six parameters are aliases for 'question' and schema descriptions cover 100% of them, so the schema already carries the full semantic load. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond noting 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which is not materially new information.

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 opens with 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx' and immediately identifies it as the same universal router with the same 5,724 tools, arguments, and response shape. This clearly differentiates it from the stable sibling ask_pipeworx while making its function evident.

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 explicitly instructs 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and clarifies that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. It even states the current state — no candidate active — which tells the agent when this is effectively identical to the stable tool.

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