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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description explains the beta nature, states that no candidate is currently active (so behavior matches stable), and explicitly says it 'IS a full working router.' This adds useful context without contradicting the 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 somewhat wordy and repetitive, using phrases like 'identical' and 'same' multiple times. While it is not excessively long, it could be more concise and 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?

It provides necessary context about the beta status, the comparison with the stable router, and the fallback behavior. It does not describe the output format, but since it states 'identical response shape' to ask_pipeworx, this is implicitly covered.

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 already covers all six parameters with descriptions, including aliases. The tool description does not add additional meaning to the parameters; it merely references them, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 it is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same arguments and response shape. This conveys its primary function as a routing tool and distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx variant, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from all sibling tools.

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 provides a specific usage condition: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' This gives clear guidance on when to prefer this tool over the stable router, though it does not mention other alternative tools.

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