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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description goes beyond that by disclosing that routing candidates may be enabled live, that none is currently active, and that it falls back to nothing — it is a full working router, not a stub. This adds meaningful behavioral context about experimental variability and current equivalence to the stable version.

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?

Three sentences carry essential information, with the core identity and current state up front. There is slight redundancy ('identical universal router' / 'same 5,743 tools' / 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly'), but each sentence contributes useful context for an experimental tool. Overall efficient and well-ordered.

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 covers what the tool is, its experimental nature, its current equivalence to ask_pipeworx, how to use it, and that it is fully functional. It does not describe specific routing behavior or response details, but it explicitly references the stable counterpart for that. This is sufficient for correct invocation.

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%; the schema already documents the question parameter and all five aliases in detail. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but that is not needed given complete schema coverage. Baseline 3 applies.

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 states this is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with 5,743 tools, and it explicitly mentions the same arguments and response shape. It differentiates itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by being the experimental edge, and from grounded variants implicitly by framing itself as pure routing. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It explains the evaluation context (compared against stable router) and notes it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. However, it does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives like ask_pipeworx_grounded, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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