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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds important context beyond annotations: this is an experimental beta that may have live routing improvements when under test, currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and is a full working router with no fallback. This is valuable behavioral disclosure.

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 four sentences and front-loads the core identity ('Beta version of ask_pipeworx'). It covers identity, current state, usage, and experimental nature without waste. The specific tool count and date add concreteness but slightly lengthen the text.

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 beta variant with a single required parameter and rich annotations, the description covers the essential context: identity, current equivalence to ask_pipeworx, when to use it, and full-router status. It relies on ask_pipeworx for response shape, but that pointer is explicit and the sibling is listed.

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%, with all properties documented as aliases for 'question.' The tool-level description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 identifies the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx and a 'universal router' with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape, which clearly distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling. It lacks an explicit imperative verb like 'answers' or 'routes,' but the resource and scope are unmistakable.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing,' naming the alternative and the condition for choosing this beta. It also clarifies the current state (no active candidate, so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly). It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use, but the when condition is clear enough.

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