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

Annotations already handle safety traits (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it reflects the experimental edge, the current state of no active candidate, and that it is a full working router rather than a fallback stub. No contradiction exists.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose and relationship to ask_pipeworx, and each following sentence adds useful context (current state, usage, comparison purpose, fallback clarification). Minor redundancy in repeatedly emphasizing parity with ask_pipeworx keeps it from being a 5.

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 tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential invocation context: what it does, how to use it, its current experimental state, and how it differs from the stable router. It does not detail return formatting, but it states the response shape matches ask_pipeworx, which is sufficient given no output schema.

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% and all six parameters are documented as aliases for the required 'question' field. The description mentions 'same arguments' but adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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?

Clearly identifies its role as a beta version of ask_pipeworx, the fact that it is a universal router, supports 5,724 tools, and shares the same arguments and response shape. The description distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx by labeling it experimental and noting candidate routing improvements.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: use this when you want the newest routing, and results are compared against the stable router. It does not list formal exclusions or compare to ask_pipeworx_grounded, but the guidance about identical usage and current parity with ask_pipeworx is clear enough.

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