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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, and the description adds valuable context: no candidate is currently active, it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and it has no fallback because it is a fully functional router. This openly discloses the experimental nature without contradicting the annotations.

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 moderately long but each sentence earns its place: beta status, current parity, usage instruction, and no-fallback caveat. It is front-loaded with the most important fact and could be slightly tighter, but has no 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 tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent everything needed to call it correctly: identical arguments/response shape to ask_pipeworx, current stable-equivalent behavior, and why it exists. The note that no candidate is active removes ambiguity about unpredictable behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the lone required parameter and its five aliases. The description says arguments match ask_pipeworx but adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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?

Description states it is a beta version of ask_pipeworx and a universal router, explicitly enumerating the same 5,724 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by highlighting candidate routing improvements, so a selecting agent can tell them apart.

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 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and explains that this tool is compared against the stable router. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and names the sibling alternative explicitly.

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