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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that candidate routing improvements may be enabled live, that no candidate is currently active, and that it is a full working router with no fallback. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs to trust the tool.

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 compact, front-loaded with the tool's beta identity, and every sentence adds necessary context: identity, current state, usage guidance, and reassurance against fallback concerns. There is no redundant 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?

For a universal router with no output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: what it routes to, how it relates to ask_pipeworx, current experimental status, expected use, and the absence of a fallback. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 fully documents all parameter aliases. The description only says 'same arguments' without adding further parameter semantics, which matches the baseline expectation when the schema carries the burden.

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 this as a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It explicitly distinguishes it from the stable router by its experimental status, leaving no ambiguity about 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?

It gives an explicit usage directive: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and explains the comparison to the stable router. This tells the agent when to choose this tool over the obvious sibling alternative.

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