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

Given annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, the description adds useful behavior beyond those: experimental routing candidates may be live, no candidate is currently active, and the tool is a full working router rather than a wrapper with fallback. The 'Falls back to nothing' line is slightly ambiguous but is immediately clarified to mean 'not a fallback'.

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 opening sentence is information-dense and front-loaded, and the candidate-state and usage guidance are relevant. It is slightly longer than necessary and the final sentence partly repeats already-established behavior, introducing mild ambiguity ('Falls back to nothing').

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 simple one-required-argument router, the description covers what it is, current candidate state, how to choose it, and the lack of a fallback. It omits an actual description of the response content, but it explicitly says the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx, transferring that knowledge to a known sibling; no output schema exists to fill the gap.

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%, so every parameter already documents its role as an alias for question, which is enough for an agent to invoke the tool. The description only repeats that arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx and adds no additional parameter guidance.

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 a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same 5,714 tools, arguments, and response shape, so an agent can tell what it does and how it differs from the stable tool. It is not a 5 because it never plainly defines what ask_pipeworx itself answers or routes, relying on the name and schema for that meaning.

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 names the stable alternative (ask_pipeworx), gives the condition for choosing this beta ('when you want the newest routing'), and states that results are compared against the stable router to decide what merges. It does not state an explicit 'do not use in production' exclusion, but the experimental-vs-stable framing is clear.

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