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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: it is a full working router with no fallback, behavior may vary when a routing candidate is under test, and it currently matches the stable version exactly. This gives the agent an accurate picture of the tool's operational 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 front-loaded with the core identity and key distinction, then provides the current state and usage instruction. The additional points about candidate testing, the 5,798 tools, and the fallback reassurance are all relevant and earn their place without padding.

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 is complete enough for a router tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations. It explains the beta status, current behavior, relationship to the stable tool, and response-shape equivalence. It does not detail the return format, but this is covered by stating it has the same response shape as ask_pipeworx.

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: question is described as accepting natural language, and the aliases are all explicitly listed. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond saying it uses the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, but that is acceptable because the schema already carries the full burden.

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, specifying it is an identical universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It explicitly differentiates itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by noting the experimental routing improvements, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool 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?

The description gives explicit usage guidance: use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and notes that results are compared against the stable router. It also clarifies the current state where no candidate is active, so it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, helping the agent decide when to invoke it.

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