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

Annotations already convey idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavior: it discloses that this is an experimental version, that candidate routing improvements are enabled only when under test, that none is active now, and that it is a 'full working router' rather than a stub. This exceeds what annotations provide and matches them.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place: identity, behavioral caveats, current status, usage guidance, and reassurance that it's a real router. It is front-loaded with the most important facts ('Beta version of ask_pipeworx', 'identical universal router'). Slightly verbose but not bloated.

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 description conveys that the response shape and arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, which is the key context needed to invoke a universal router. It also notes there is no fallback and it's a full working router. Without an output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly. Minor gap: it doesn't describe what happens if a candidate is active, but that is covered by the comparison statement.

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 parameters are documented as aliases for the required 'question'. The description adds 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which is helpful redundancy, but since the schema already fully explains the parameters, the description does not need to compensate. 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 opens by identifying the tool as 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx' and characterizes it as an 'identical universal router', which clearly states what it does. It also distinguishes it from the stable sibling by calling it 'the experimental edge', so an agent can tell it apart from ask_pipeworx without opening the schema.

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 states when to use it: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also explains the comparison-to-stable-router workflow and current equivalence to ask_pipeworx. It does not list exclusions (e.g., when NOT to use beta), but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide between the two variants.

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