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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: experimental routing being enabled live, the current inactive-candidate state making it identical to ask_pipeworx, and the fact that results are compared to the stable router. This gives the agent a clear picture of a real, working, but experimental tool.

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 front-loaded with the beta identity and the key equivalence to ask_pipeworx, then explains the current experimental state and usage. All sentences earn their place, though there is slight redundancy between 'identical universal router' and 'same 5,724 tools, same arguments, same response shape.'

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 high-level routing tool, the description covers the essential context: what it does, its relationship to the stable version, its live experimental mode, current behavior, and that it is a full working router with no fallback. It wisely avoids enumerating thousands of routed tools. A small gap is that an agent unfamiliar with ask_pipeworx would still need to inspect ask_pipeworx for detailed routing semantics.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage and documents all parameters as aliases for 'question.' The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond repeating that arguments are the same as ask_pipeworx. With full schema coverage, this is the appropriate baseline.

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 this as the beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same 5,724 tools and response shape, and explicitly distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx by noting candidate routing improvements. This is a specific verb+resource definition that separates it from sibling tools.

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 states when to use it: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing,' and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It does not provide an explicit when-not-to-use or alternative selection cleanup, so it falls just short of a 5.

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