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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it is a live experimental edge, currently has no active candidate so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and it does not fall back to anything—it is a fully functional router. This manages expectations about potential routing differences.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: one for the beta identity, one for the current state, one for usage guidance, and one to clarify it is not a fallback stub. It is dense but not bloated, and the most distinguishing information is front-loaded.

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 is a router with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers identity, relation to the stable sibling, current active status, expected behavior, and experimental purpose. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret its role.

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 the question parameter and five aliases fully documented. The description only says 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, adding no new parameter detail, so the baseline score of 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 identifies the tool as the beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape. It explicitly distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx by the experimental routing improvements, giving an agent a precise mental model.

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 gives clear context for when to use it: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and notes results are compared against the stable router. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention grounded/variant alternatives, but the usage condition is clear enough.

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