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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the beta/experimental nature, the potential for routing improvements under test, and the fact that results are compared for merging decisions. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the variable behavior and current status, though it doesn't detail what happens when a candidate is active.

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 bit lengthy but each sentence adds value: identifying the beta status, explaining the identical nature, giving current state, providing usage direction, and clarifying it's a full router. It is front-loaded with the key differentiator ('Beta version'), and all content is relevant. Slightly verbose but justified.

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?

Given that this is a router with a single required question parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, how to use it, when to prefer it, and its current behavior. It explicitly notes it is a full working router, so an agent can confidently invoke it. Complete for its purpose without needing output details.

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%, so the schema fully documents the 'question' parameter and its aliases. The description does not add any parameter-specific information, which is acceptable given the complete schema coverage. The description correctly avoids redundant parameter details, so a baseline score 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 clearly states what the tool is: a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with 5,714 tools, and it explicitly contrasts with the stable ask_pipeworx. It specifies the verb (ask/route), the resource (universal router), and differentiates from siblings by naming the experimental edge and the stable alternative.

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 usage guidance: use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and notes that results are compared against the stable router. It mentions the current state (no active candidate) and that it currently matches ask_pipeworx, effectively telling the agent when to choose this over the stable sibling.

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