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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive; the description adds that it is a live beta with candidate routing improvements only when active, currently matches ask_pipeworx, and has no fallback. This gives the agent an accurate expectation of experimental behavior and current equivalence without contradicting 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 essential beta-version and identity statement, then explains current status and usage in short sentences. The date and no-fallback note are useful context, and there is minimal waste.

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 beta alias of an existing sibling, the description covers identity, current behavior, usage condition, and safety implications (no fallback, experimental edge). Without an output schema it relies on the 'same response shape' phrase, which ties the return behavior to ask_pipeworx; this 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 documents all six alias parameters (question, q, text, input, query, prompt), so the schema carries the semantic load. The description only restates that arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, adding no per-parameter detail.

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?

States a specific function: a beta universal router with the same 5,908 tools, arguments, and response shape as ask_pipeworx. It clearly positions itself relative to ask_pipeworx and highlights the experimental routing edge, so an agent can tell it apart from the stable sibling.

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 to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when wanting the newest routing, and explains the comparison against the stable router. It gives a clear condition and reference alternative, though it doesn't spell out when not to use it or mention ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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