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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it is a full working router, not a fallback; experimental routing candidates may be enabled live; and it currently behaves identically to ask_pipeworx. This clearly sets expectations about beta behavior and live changes without contradicting the 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, front-loaded with the core identity, followed by current status, usage instruction, and clarification that it is a fully functional router. Every sentence adds necessary information about beta behavior, routing state, and experimental nature, with no filler or redundancy.

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 complex universal router with thousands of tools and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool is, its relationship to the stable version, when to use it, current experimental state, and guarantees that it is a full router. Annotations cover the safety profile, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%: the required 'question' parameter and all five aliases are documented in the schema. The description only repeats that the tool takes 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, adding no semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 clearly defines the tool as 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router' with the same 5,724 tools and response shape, making the verb-resource relationship explicit. It distinguishes itself from sibling ask_pipeworx by its beta status and experimental routing improvements, so an agent can disambiguate without opening schemas.

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 states when to use it: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and notes it currently matches ask_pipeworx because no candidate is active. It names the stable router as the comparison point, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like ask_pipeworx_grounded, so it falls just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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