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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context by disclosing that candidate routing may be live, that none is active as of the given date, and that it is a full working router with no fallback, which is valuable beyond the annotation flags.

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 essential nature of the tool and each sentence adds substance about status, usage, or behavior. It is somewhat dense and repeats the equivalence to ask_pipeworx, but it is still appropriately sized for the information it carries.

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 with no output schema, the description provides essential context: same response shape, current parity with ask_pipeworx, experimental status, and no fallback. It does not describe the response format, but pointing to the stable sibling's response shape is a reasonable substitute given the close relationship.

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 defines question and the five aliases. The description only adds the cross-reference 'same arguments' without parameter-level detail, which is acceptable but does not raise the score above the baseline.

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 opens with 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx' and states it is an identical universal router with the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape, which clearly identifies what it does. It distinguishes itself from the stable sibling by the candidate-routing improvements under test, so an agent can separate it from ask_pipeworx without ambiguity.

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 guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing,' and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement naming the stable or grounded alternative, so it stops short of a full routing decision rule.

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