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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: a v9-eval-disjoint-examples candidate prompt is live on every call, results are compared against the stable router, and 'falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router,' which prevents the agent from assuming reduced capability. It does not cover latency or rate-limit 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?

Three sentences, beta identity and the key experimental fact are front-loaded. The final em-dash clause is slightly loose but earns its place by pre-empting a fallback misconception.

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 single-question router with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return semantics by promising 'same response shape' as ask_pipeworx, and explains the experimental routing. Sufficient for correct invocation, though it does not describe the response contract itself.

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% and the alias fields are fully documented in the schema, so the body carries the parameter burden. The description only contributes the general note that arguments match ask_pipeworx, which is a baseline-level addition.

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?

States a specific identity ('beta version of ask_pipeworx') and scope ('identical universal router, same 6,475 tools, same arguments, same response shape'), and explicitly differentiates from the sibling ask_pipeworx by which routing prompt is live. An agent can distinguish the two 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?

Gives an explicit directive: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing,' and clarifies the alternative (ask_pipeworx serves the candidate prompt to a slice of traffic only). Both the when and the alternative are named.

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