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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is a full working router with no fallback, current behavior matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and future candidate routing changes may be active without warning. This goes well beyond what the annotations convey.

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 longer than a minimal one, but each sentence contributes distinct information: beta status, current candidate state, usage direction, comparison purpose, and no-fallback guarantee. Key facts are front-loaded in the first sentence, and there is minimal filler.

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 router with high schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential operational context: current equivalence to the stable version, experimental status, no fallback, and identical response shape. It does not describe the output format directly, but referencing ask_pipeworx fills that gap for an agent that compares the sibling tools.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not explain the question parameter or its aliases, but it does state that the tool takes the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, which gives a useful cross-reference. This is adequate but adds little direct semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 a beta version of ask_pipeworx and describes it as a universal router over the same 5,908 tools. It distinguishes itself from the stable sibling by the candidate routing improvements that can be enabled live. A direct verb such as route or answer is absent, but the intended use is unambiguous.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing. It also notes the experimental nature and that results are compared against the stable router for merge decisions. It does not explicitly say when not to use it, but the beta framing implies caution for stability-sensitive cases.

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