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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive, which covers safety. The description goes further by disclosing that candidate routing improvements are enabled live during tests, that no candidate is currently active, that behavior currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and that this is a fully working router rather than a forwarding wrapper. This is substantial context beyond the annotations and contains no contradiction.

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 with no filler. Each sentence contributes distinct value: the beta identity and scope, the current candidate state, the usage instruction, and the reassurance that it is a full router. The structure front-loads the core purpose and keeps supporting details tightly relevant.

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 the tool's complexity as a universal router, the description supplies everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly: what it is, how it currently behaves, when to use it, how it relates to ask_pipeworx, and what not to assume about fallback. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the explicit statement that the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx.

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%, so the question parameter and all five aliases are fully documented in the input schema. The description only mentions 'same arguments' and adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 opens with 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router' and specifies the same 5,743 tools, same arguments, and same response shape. This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling while also differentiating it from ask_pipeworx_grounded by its experimental nature.

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 explicitly states 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It gives a clear when-to-use condition and names the primary alternative, though it does not provide an explicit when-not-to-use list beyond the implications of 'beta.'

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