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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by explaining that candidate routing improvements are enabled live when under test, that no candidate is currently active, and that this is a fully working router rather than a fallback stub. 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?

The description is front-loaded with the tool's identity and beta nature, and each sentence contributes either usage guidance or transparency. It is somewhat dense with parentheticals and a specific date, but it remains efficient for the nuance it covers.

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 simple natural-language router with safe annotations and fully documented parameters, the description is nearly complete. It references 'same response shape' without specifying what that shape is, but it points clearly to ask_pipeworx as the behavioral reference, which is sufficient given the sibling context.

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 all six parameters are documented as aliases for the natural-language question. The description adds only 'same arguments' via the ask_pipeworx reference, which does not materially improve on the schema. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 variant of the ask_pipeworx universal router and explains that it shares the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx by the experimental routing improvement angle, though it does not use a strong imperative verb for the tool's core action and does not differentiate from ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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 states when to use it: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing,' and contrasts it with the stable router for comparison. It does not explicitly list exclusions or mention ask_pipeworx_grounded, but the intended experimental usage is clear.

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