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

Annotations already convey read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: no candidate routing improvement is currently active, the tool currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and it is a complete working router rather than a fallback or stub.

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 with the key identity of the tool. It contains some redundancy between 'identical universal router' and 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly,' but the status details are relevant and the length is justified for an experimental variant.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description provides enough context: current behavior, relationship to ask_pipeworx, and the fact that it is fully functional. It does not describe the response shape in detail, but it points to ask_pipeworx as having the same shape, which is sufficient for an agent to proceed.

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%, with all parameters documented as aliases for 'question.' The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond saying the tool accepts the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, so the schema carries the burden and the baseline 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?

The description clearly identifies this as the beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with candidate routing improvements. It distinguishes the tool from its stable sibling by emphasizing the experimental edge and explicitly states it is a full working router, not a fallback stub.

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 says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and notes results are compared to the stable router. It does not explicitly state 'use ask_pipeworx for stable/production routing,' but the contrast between experimental and stable is clear enough for an agent to infer the appropriate choice.

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