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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: candidate routing improvements are enabled live when under test, no candidate is currently active, and this is a full working router rather than a fallback. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 relationship to ask_pipeworx, then efficiently explains the current experimental state and usage. Each sentence contributes useful information, though the specific tool count and date are slightly dense and could become stale.

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 router with no output schema, the description compensates by referencing the same response shape as ask_pipeworx. It also covers experimental status, current parity with the stable router, and the fact that it does not fall back to anything. It relies somewhat on the agent already understanding ask_pipeworx, but within the sibling context this is acceptable.

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%, with the aliases and the question parameter fully documented. The description adds only that the arguments match ask_pipeworx, which is a generic reference rather than parameter-specific detail. The schema carries the burden here, 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 states this is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes the experimental routing edge from the stable router, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does and how it relates to its siblings.

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 says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is desired, and explains that it currently matches ask_pipeworx because no candidate is active. It gives clear usage context, though it does not explicitly contrast with ask_pipeworx_grounded or state when not to use it.

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