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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it is an experimental live edge, may have routing candidates under test, currently has none, and is a full working router with no fallback. No contradiction with 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 a bit longer than necessary but each sentence carries distinct information: beta identity, current candidate state, usage instruction, and experimental nature. The key statements are front-loaded, though the date and repeated 'same ... same ... same' 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?

For a complex universal router with no output schema, the description explains the tool's role, current behavior, and relationship to ask_pipeworx. It relies on the agent already knowing ask_pipeworx's response shape, since it says 'same response shape' without defining it, which is a minor gap.

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% and the schema already documents the `question` parameter and its aliases. The description adds only that arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, which confirms compatibility but does not add new semantics 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 clearly identifies the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router over the same 5,908 tools with identical arguments and response shape. It distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx by its experimental routing improvements, so an agent can tell what it does 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 explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is wanted, and notes that results are compared against the stable router. This names the alternative and the selection condition; the current state (no candidate active) is also stated.

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