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

Annotations already mark it readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent; the description adds meaningful behavioral context: candidate improvements are live only when under test, no candidate is currently active, and it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. Disclosing the experimental edge and absence of fallback goes beyond the structured 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?

Four sentences deliver the core identity, current status, usage rule, and an important clarification about fallback behavior without redundancy. The key scoping information is front-loaded.

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?

The definition is complete for selecting and invoking the tool, covering current behavior and compatibility. The main gap is the absence of an output schema and concrete return-shape details—it only references ask_pipeworx's response shape, leaving the agent to infer the exact response format.

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 input schema already documents the required question parameter plus all five aliases with descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond stating that arguments match ask_pipeworx, so the baseline 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?

The description explicitly identifies the tool as a beta variant of ask_pipeworx—an identical universal router with the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape—while noting the experimental routing improvements. This clearly distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling and states what the tool does.

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?

'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' gives an explicit selection condition and names the stable alternative. It also explains the comparison purpose and clarifies that no fallback exists, so an agent knows when to pick this variant.

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