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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent; the description adds substantial context beyond that: it is a beta with live candidate routing improvements, no candidate is currently active, it exactly matches the stable router today, and it 'falls back to nothing' — meaning it is a fully working router rather than a degraded stub. This shapes an agent's expectations about behavioral variability over time. 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?

Four sentences that each earn their place: identity, current state, usage direction, and fallback clarification. There is mild redundancy between 'same response shape' and 'matches ask_pipeworx exactly,' but the description is dense and front-loaded with the most important fact.

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 routing tool with no output schema, the description compensates by stating the response shape matches ask_pipeworx and thoroughly covering the live experimental pipeline. An agent gets enough context to invoke it correctly; it could add expected response format details or side effects of participating in the comparison, but the stable-sibling reference keeps it navigable.

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% — all six parameters (question plus five aliases: q, text, input, query, prompt) are already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the cross-reference that arguments match ask_pipeworx, which is modest extra value beyond the schema.

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 states a precise role: a beta variant of the universal router with the same 5,798 tools and response shape as ask_pipeworx. It clearly distinguishes itself from the stable sibling as the experimental edge, and it explains that it currently behaves identically. An agent knows exactly what the tool does and how it relates to closely named siblings.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and explains that results are compared against the stable router to decide what merges. This gives the agent a clear condition for choosing this beta variant, though it never explicitly says when not to use it or when to prefer the stable ask_pipeworx.

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