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

With annotations already covering read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds valuable context: this is an experimental beta router, no candidate is currently active, and it is a full working router rather than a fallback stub. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 longer than strictly necessary but each clause provides meaningful operational context: beta status, parity with ask_pipeworx, current candidate state, and comparison purpose. It is front-loaded with the core identification and does not waste sentences.

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 description adequately explains current behavior, how to use it, and what makes it different from stable ask_pipeworx. Since there is no output schema, the mention of the same response shape is helpful, though slightly indirect without a direct link to ask_pipeworx's output details.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters and aliases. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond saying arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, keeping this at the baseline.

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 identifies the tool as the beta version of ask_pipeworx and a universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling by its experimental routing status, though it relies somewhat on the reader knowing what ask_pipeworx itself 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?

The description explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when wanting the newest routing, and notes that results are compared against the stable router. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or compare against ask_pipeworx_grounded, but the primary alternative is clearly identified.

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