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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it is a full working router rather than a stub, it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly because no candidate is active, and experimental improvements may be enabled live during tests. This is strong behavioral disclosure.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core identity of the tool. The specific details about tool counts, dates, and fallback behavior earn their place for an experimental router, though the phrasing 'Falls back to nothing' is slightly indirect and could be clearer.

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?

The description covers the tool's current state, its relationship to the stable router, usage guidance, and the fact that it is fully operational. With no output schema present, some return-shape detail is referenced only as 'same response shape' as ask_pipeworx, but the agent can resolve this through the sibling tool, so the description is reasonably complete.

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?

The input schema already documents all parameters with 100% coverage, including the question parameter and its aliases. The description only restates that arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, which adds little beyond the schema, so the 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 identifies this as a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same 5,767 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by being the experimental edge for routing improvements, and the current inactive-candidate state makes its exact behavior concrete.

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 says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is desired, and explains that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. This gives the agent a clear decision rule and names the relevant alternative.

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