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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful beyond-annotation context: candidate routing improvements can be live under test, none is currently active, it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and it is a full working router rather than a fallback stub. This is transparent about experimental variability and potential behavioral differences over time.

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 difference, followed by current status and usage guidance. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, with some redundancy between 'experimental edge' and the fuller working-router reassurance, but every sentence contributes meaningful context.

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 single-question router with rich safety annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers identity, behavioral status, how to use it, what changes, and what the response shape is. The mention of 'same response shape' effectively substitutes for an output schema, and no critical operational detail is missing.

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 all parameters clearly documented as aliases for question, so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description adds only that the tool accepts the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, which is useful but does not materially enrich understanding 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 immediately identifies this as a beta version of ask_pipeworx and precisely characterizes it as an identical universal router with the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape. It clearly distinguishes the tool from ask_pipeworx by the experimental routing behavior while leaving no doubt 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 explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is desired, and explains that results are compared against the stable router for merge decisions. The context of no active candidate and full working router status also helps the agent decide whether to invoke it.

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