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

The annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by explaining that it is a live beta with candidate routing improvements and that results are compared against the stable router. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them, providing transparency about its experimental nature.

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 somewhat repetitive, stating that it is identical to ask_pipeworx multiple times ('identical universal router', 'matches ask_pipeworx exactly', 'full working router'). While not excessively long, the redundancy could be trimmed to improve conciseness without losing meaning.

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 provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose, its beta status, and how it relates to the stable version. It explains the fallback behavior and that it is fully functional. It does not mention output format, but no output schema exists, so this is not a gap. Overall, it is complete for practical use.

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?

The schema includes six parameters all serving the same purpose, and the description for each alias explicitly states 'Alias for question.' The main question parameter fully explains that it accepts natural language and lists all aliases. This gives complete clarity on parameter meaning and relationships, exceeding the schema's basic descriptions.

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, and distinguishes it from the stable version and other siblings by mentioning candidate routing improvements. The function is explicitly described as identical to ask_pipeworx with the same tools, arguments, and response shape, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also clarifies that it is not a fallback ('Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router'), which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly contrast with ask_pipeworx_grounded or other alternatives, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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