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

Annotations declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds transparency by explaining the beta behavior: candidate routing improvements may be live, none is active currently, so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly at present, and it falls back to nothing being a full working router. This is genuinely useful behavioral context 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 well-sized and front-loads the beta nature and current equivalence to ask_pipeworx. It explains candidate routing, comparison intent, and fallback behavior in a compact, scannable form. Slight redundancy in the aliases list in schema doesn't affect description quality.

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 single-question router tool with rich annotations, the description covers the beta status, current behavior, comparison purpose, and relationship to the sibling stable router. No output schema exists, but the description explicitly notes the same response shape as ask_pipeworx, which is sufficient context for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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%; all six parameters are aliases for question. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. It doesn't clarify which alias is preferred or whether any parameter takes precedence.

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 variant of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes it from stable ask_pipeworx by noting experimental routing improvements, though it does not describe what the universal router itself does.

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 wanting the newest routing, and explains results are compared against the stable router. It doesn't give when-not-to-use criteria, but the comparison context plus naming the sibling ask_pipeworx gives reasonable routing guidance.

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