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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable context beyond this: the beta status, live candidate routing behavior, the fallback behavior, and how results are compared. There is no contradiction with 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 moderately detailed but every sentence contributes useful context: beta relationship, current active state, identical behavior, and fallback guarantee. It is front-loaded and not padded, though the repeated explanation of 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly' could be tightened.

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 one-parameter router with strong annotations, the description covers the essential operational context: current equivalence to the stable version, experimental routing, and the fact that it is fully functional. Since no output schema exists, a bit more detail about the response shape would improve completeness, but referencing the sibling's response shape is sufficient in context.

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 the question parameter and its aliases. The description only says it uses the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, which adds no new parameter semantics; the baseline 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 explicitly states what the tool does: it is a beta universal router with the same tool set, arguments, and response shape as ask_pipeworx. It clearly distinguishes it from the stable sibling by highlighting the experimental routing improvements, so an agent can immediately tell it 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 when-to-use guidance: use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing. It also names the stable alternative and explains the current state (no active candidate), so an agent knows it currently behaves identically to ask_pipeworx.

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