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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful live-behavior context: candidate routing improvements are enabled only when under test, none is active right now, and the tool currently behaves identically to ask_pipeworx. It also clarifies that this is a fully working router with no fallback, which goes beyond annotation coverage.

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 longer than strictly necessary but packs in important status information: beta identity, current state, matching behavior, use case, and evaluation purpose. The date and exact tool count are minor extras, but all sentences contribute to an accurate mental model.

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 no-output-schema tool with many siblings, the description sufficiently covers identity, invocation equivalence, current experimental status, and fallback behavior. It does not describe the actual response format, but 'same response shape' plus reference to ask_pipeworx provide enough grounding for an agent that can inspect the sibling.

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 schema already documents the question parameter and its aliases in detail. The description only repeats that arguments match ask_pipeworx and adds no new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline 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 identifies a specific resource ('beta version of ask_pipeworx') and a concrete function: a universal router with the same 5,908 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling by explicitly labeling the experimental edge and noting that no candidate is currently active.

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 direct usage direction: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also explains the evaluation context — results are compared against the stable router — which tells an agent when this tool is relevant versus the stable alternative.

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