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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses the experimental nature, the current inactive candidate state, that it matches stable behavior, and that it is a full working router with no fallback. This adds meaningful context about variability and operational status. It does not explicitly warn of potential result volatility, but the beta framing implies it.

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 a single paragraph of four sentences, each serving a purpose: establishes beta identity, clarifies current state, gives usage directive, and asserts reliability. It is slightly verbose (e.g., 'Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router') but not wasteful. Information is front-loaded with the beta nature.

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 router tool with no output schema, the description provides complete high-level context: what it routes, how it differs from stable, when to use it, and what to expect. It does not enumerate query types, but that is unnecessary for a universal router. The mention of 'same response shape' compensates for missing output schema.

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 parameters well-documented as aliases for 'question'. The description references 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which provides cross-tool context but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate—the schema carries the load.

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 handling the same 5,724 tools. It explicitly differentiates itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by noting candidate routing improvements, and the sibling list confirms several related tools. Specific verb+resource+scope.

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 clear guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and mentions results are compared against the stable router. It identifies the context of experimentation but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for production-critical queries). Still, the 'newest routing' condition is a reasonable selector.

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