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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the beta status, that routing improvements are enabled live when under test, that no candidate is currently active, and that it 'falls back to nothing' as a full working router. This is transparent about the experimental nature 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 dense but efficient. Every sentence adds value: beta identity, identical router scope, current candidate state, usage instruction, and no-fallback clarification. It is slightly long but well-organized and front-loaded with the most important meaning.

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 that there is no output schema, the description relies on 'same response shape' to convey return behavior; this is sufficient if the agent can consult ask_pipeworx, but not fully self-contained. The tool's complexity is high, yet the essential aspects—routing scope, aliases, usage, current state, and relationship to siblings—are covered.

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%: all six parameters are clearly described, including the primary 'question' parameter and its five aliases. The description only says 'same arguments' without adding new parameter detail, but because the schema fully documents every parameter, a 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 states precisely what the tool is: a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router over 5,743 tools with the same arguments and response shape. It clearly differentiates itself from ask_pipeworx by its experimental routing edge, and the purpose is unambiguous despite not using a conventional verb like 'ask'.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use it: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It names the stable ask_pipeworx router as the alternative and clarifies that results are compared against it. This is direct, actionable guidance with no guessing required.

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