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

Annotations already cover safety (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds critical behavioral context: it is the experimental edge, routing improvements may become active live, and currently no candidate is active so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It also transparently states that it does not fall back to anything, reducing agent uncertainty. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the tool's identity and current status. Each sentence provides value, though 'identical universal router' and 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly' create a slight redundancy. Overall well structured and appropriately sized.

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 router with a single natural-language parameter and no output schema, the description explains what the tool is, its current experimental state, when to use it, and that its response shape matches ask_pipeworx. It could explicitly describe the response structure, but the reference to ask_pipeworx gives a known baseline. The agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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 the question parameter and all aliases fully described in the schema. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond saying 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which is redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation 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?

Clearly identifies the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router over 5,724 tools, and explicitly states it shares the same arguments and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling by its beta status and candidate routing improvements. The action and resource are 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?

Explicitly instructs when to use the tool: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It contrasts with the stable ask_pipeworx sibling and notes that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. Also clarifies it is a fully working router, not a fallback.

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