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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world hints. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it is a beta version, currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, has no active candidate, and is a live experimental edge. This informs the agent about potential variability and the fact that results are compared for merging. 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 three sentences that are information-dense and front-loaded: it opens with the beta designation, then clarifies the current state (no active candidate, identical to ask_pipeworx), and finally gives usage instructions. It is concise though could be slightly tightened (e.g., 'Falls back to nothing—this IS a full working router' is a bit redundant given the context). Still, every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's complexity (a universal router over 5,721 tools) and absence of an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it is, current behavior (identical to ask_pipeworx), and how to use it. It mentions 'same response shape' which compensates for the missing output schema. It does not provide a concrete example, but the parameter is a single natural language question, so examples are less critical. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, with each parameter described as an alias for 'question'. The description itself adds minimal parameter-specific information—only 'same arguments' and 'use it exactly like ask_pipeworx', which does not go beyond the schema's own descriptions. Basline 3 is correct when the schema already fully documents parameters.

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 states it is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router that handles natural language questions and routes to 5,721 tools. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by being the experimental edge, and clarifies it is a full working router, not a fallback. This gives an agent a precise understanding of what the tool does.

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 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 merges. This gives clear context on when to prefer it (for the newest routing/experimental testing). It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., when stability is critical), but the 'beta' label and experimental framing imply that. It could be more explicit about exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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