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

Annotations already mark it read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description goes further by disclosing beta-specific behavior: candidate routing improvements are enabled live only when under test, no candidate is active right now, and it is a full working router with no fallback. This manages expectations beyond the structured hints.

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?

Three dense sentences each earn their place: beta status and equivalence, current candidate state, and usage guidance with reassurance about being a full router. No filler or redundant repetition of schema content.

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 universal router with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description supplies the missing contextual pieces: beta nature, current parity with the stable router, and the evaluation purpose. No output schema exists, but the description points to ask_pipeworx for response shape, which is sufficient.

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 every property (question and five aliases) documented. The description only says 'same arguments' without adding parameter-level detail, so it does not need to compensate; baseline 3 applies.

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 states this is a beta version of ask_pipeworx and an identical universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling by emphasizing its experimental edge and the same-arguments relationship.

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 clarifies it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly since no candidate is active. The comparison against the stable router explains the evaluation context and helps an agent decide when this variant is appropriate.

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