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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses the key behavioral caveat: candidate routing improvements are enabled live, but none are active right now, so behavior currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It also clarifies that this is a full working router, not a degraded fallback, and explains that results are compared against the stable router. This is valuable, specific behavioral context.

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, each carrying distinct information: beta identity, current equivalence, usage intent, and guaranteed functionality. Slightly wordy at the end ('Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router, just the experimental edge'), but still efficient and well-organized.

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 tool as complex as a universal router into 5,724 tools, the description covers the essential context: experimental status, current parity with the stable version, and full working behavior. It does not describe the response shape directly, relying on the sibling ask_pipeworx, but that is acceptable given the explicit reference.

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%; the 'question' field and all aliases are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only 'same arguments' without going into parameter details, so it does not meaningfully supplement the schema. Baseline 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 clearly identifies the tool as the beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same tool set and arguments. It distinguishes itself from the stable sibling by labeling it the experimental edge. However, it relies on the reader knowing what ask_pipeworx does; the purpose is clear but not fully self-contained.

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,' which gives a clear selection criterion. It does not explicitly contrast with ask_pipeworx_grounded or offer a 'when not to use' list, but the experiment vs. stable distinction is direct and actionable.

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