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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds significant behavioral context: its experimental nature, that candidate improvements may be live at any time, the current state (no active candidate, so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly), and that it is a fully functional router with 'nothing' to fall back on. This goes well beyond the annotations and removes ambiguity about reliability/behavior.

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 earns its place: it defines the beta status, states the current equivalence to ask_pipeworx, gives usage guidance, and reassures that it is a full router. The description is information-dense yet concise, with no filler or repetition.

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?

Despite the underlying complexity of routing to thousands of tools, the description provides everything an agent needs to select and invoke it: what it is, how it currently behaves, when to use it, and that the input is a natural-language question. It references ask_pipeworx for response shape, which is acceptable given the sibling relationship, and annotations cover the safety profile.

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% and the schema already documents the 'question' parameter and its aliases clearly. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond saying 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which is reasonable but not additional detail. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter meaning.

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 identifies the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx: a universal router over 5,908 tools with the same arguments and response shape. It explicitly distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx by its experimental routing improvements, so an agent can tell them apart without opening either schema.

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 an explicit usage condition: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and notes that results are compared against the stable router. It names the stable router as the alternative, though it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it beyond implying that stable routing would be the conservative choice.

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