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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the experimental nature: candidates may be active and behavior may differ from stable, and currently no candidate is active so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly. This transparency about dynamic behavior is useful beyond 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 about four sentences and each adds information: the beta nature, the current status, usage instruction, and clarification of full functionality. It's front-loaded with the key distinction. It could be slightly more concise, but it's well-structured and not wasteful.

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 complex router tool, the description covers the experimental nature, the identity with ask_pipeworx, and the usage context. It mentions the same response shape and argument set, which implicitly defines outputs. With full parameter schema and annotations, it's nearly complete; the only minor gap is explicit mention of return format, but that's covered by the 'same response shape' clause.

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 covers all 6 parameters with full descriptions, including the main 'question' parameter and its aliases. The description only says 'same arguments' without adding new meaning, so it relies on the schema. Per the baseline, with 100% coverage, a 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?

The description explicitly states the tool is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same tools and arguments. It distinguishes itself from the stable sibling by being the experimental edge, and names ask_pipeworx as the stable counterpart. This is specific and differentiates well among siblings.

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 instructs to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and notes that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. It also clarifies it's a full working router, not a fallback. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and names the alternative.

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