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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations. It adds context about beta behavior and comparison with the stable version without contradicting the declared non-destructive, read-only nature.

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 somewhat verbose with repeated mentions of 'same' and 'full working router,' but it remains structured and comprehensible. It is not overly long, though it could be tightened.

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?

The description fully explains the beta context, the relationship to the stable ask_pipeworx, the current no-candidate state, and the fact that it is a fully functional tool. This gives an agent sufficient context to decide when to use 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% with each parameter having a description. The tool description adds minimal parameter-specific info beyond stating 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states that this is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same tools and arguments, and that it provides the newest routing. It distinguishes itself from the stable sibling tool ask_pipeworx.

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 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and explains that results are compared against the stable router. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and references the alternative.

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