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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds crucial behavioral context: this is an experimental edge router, candidate improvements are enabled live during tests, the last candidate was retired on a specific date, and it does not fall back to anything because it is a full working router itself.

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 information-dense and front-loaded with the core identity and beta status. The final 'Falls back to nothing' sentence is slightly emphatic but earns its place by preventing an agent from assuming the beta tool might degrade to a stub. Overall, there is no filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully covers the current state, dynamic behavior, equivalence to ask_pipeworx, and what using it means operationally. It tells the agent that the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx, that results feed into routing decisions, and that the tool currently behaves exactly like the stable version, which is sufficient context 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 coverage is 100%, with all six parameters documented and question described as accepting aliases. The description only says 'same arguments' and does not add meaning beyond the schema, 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 opens by identifying the tool as the beta version of ask_pipeworx and explicitly states it is an identical universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape. This clearly distinguishes it from stable ask_pipeworx while making its core purpose understandable.

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 directly instructs when to use the tool: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also names the stable alternative, explains the comparison workflow, and clarifies that no candidate is active right now so it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. This gives an agent an actionable decision rule.

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