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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent; the description adds meaningful behavioral context: candidate routing improvements are live-tested, none is active now, and it is a full working router rather than a degraded fallback. This goes beyond the structured fields without contradicting them.

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?

Every sentence carries information: the beta nature, the current no-candidate state, the usage instruction, and the reassurance that it is a complete router. The key facts are front-loaded and there is no 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 high-complexity universal router with no output schema, the description correctly delegates exact response shape to ask_pipeworx and gives current operational status. It could have described the answer format a bit more explicitly, but pointing to the stable sibling and the schema is a reasonable substitute.

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% and the input schema explains question plus aliases, so the description need not repeat parameter details. It only says 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which is sufficient when the schema already documents each field.

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, an identical universal router over 5,743 tools, and explicitly contrasts it with the stable router. It conveys both what the tool does and how it differs from its sibling, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 condition: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also notes the current state (no candidate active) and says results are compared against the stable router. It does not spell out a 'when not to use' scenario, but the conditional is clear enough.

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