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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses the beta/experimental nature, live candidate switching, the current no-candidate state as of 2026-07-26, and explicitly counters a possible fallback concern: 'Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router.' This is rich and honest behavioral disclosure.

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 dense and front-loaded, with the beta identity and relationship to ask_pipeworx stated first. Each sentence adds useful context, though there is some redundancy between 'identical' and 'matches ask_pipeworx exactly' that could be trimmed without loss.

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?

Given the tool's complexity as a universal router with no output schema, the description covers purpose, current behavior, and usage, and points to the stable sibling for response shape. It is largely complete, but an agent unfamiliar with ask_pipeworx would still need to inspect that sibling to fully understand invocation details and return data.

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 already documents all 6 aliases with 100% coverage, so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The description only says 'same arguments' without adding new meaning, earning the baseline 3 for a fully covered 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 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router' with the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape. It clearly distinguishes from the stable sibling by framing it as the experimental edge, so an agent knows exactly what the tool is and how it differs.

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 gives explicit invocation guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also names the stable router as the comparison baseline and notes that no candidate is active, which tells the agent when this tool is and isn't behaviorally distinct. That is direct, actionable routing guidance.

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