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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those: it is currently identical to ask_pipeworx because no candidate is active, it is not a fallback stub but a full working router, and it is the experimental edge where routing changes are tested live. This directly shapes an agent's expectations about risk and current 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?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It covers identity, current state, usage guidance, comparison purpose, and the non-stub nature of the tool without 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?

Given the rich annotations, full schema coverage, and explicit reference to ask_pipeworx for response shape, the description provides everything an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly. It even addresses edge concerns like whether it falls back to another tool and whether a candidate is currently active.

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%, so the schema already fully documents all six parameters and their aliases. The description adds only 'same arguments' as an equivalence claim, not new semantic detail about individual parameters. With full schema coverage, baseline 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 the beta/experimental version of ask_pipeworx and states exactly what it does: an identical universal router with the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape, but with candidate routing improvements enabled when under test. It also distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling by emphasizing 'beta' and 'experimental edge.'

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 when to use this tool: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also names the stable alternative and explains that results are compared against the stable router to decide what merges, giving the agent a clear decision criterion. The 'no candidate active right now' statement further clarifies current expected behavior versus alternatives.

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