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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), the description discloses important live behavior: no candidate is active right now, the last candidate was retired on outcome evidence, it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and it is a full working router with no fallback. This is exactly the kind of stateful behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

Four sentences contain dense, relevant information about beta status, current routing state, usage, and fallback behavior. It is slightly long but not wasteful; every sentence contributes to correct selection and invocation.

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 read-only, idempotent beta router, the description covers the key operational questions: relationship to the stable tool, current candidate status, and invocation guidance. The output shape is only referenced as 'same response shape' without detail, but since no output schema exists and this is an alias-like tool, the gap is minor.

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 schema has 100% coverage, with all six parameters documented and with aliases explicitly listed. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond noting it shares ask_pipeworx's arguments, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already carries the semantic weight.

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?

It states it is a beta version of ask_pipeworx and identifies itself as an identical universal router covering the same 5,718 tools, same arguments, and same response shape. This distinguishes it from the stable sibling, though it relies on the reader already knowing what ask_pipeworx does rather than defining the routing behavior from scratch.

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 you want the newest routing and explains that results are compared against the stable router to decide what merges. It does not provide an explicit 'when not to use' statement, but the experimental/beta framing gives clear contextual guidance.

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