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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive traits. The description adds valuable context beyond those: the experimental edge nature, that no candidate is currently active (retired 2026-07-26), that results are compared against the stable router, and that it falls back to nothing — it's a full working router. 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 longer than typical but every sentence earns its place: beta nature, current state, usage instruction, and full-router reassurance. Key facts (identical to stable, experimental edge) are front-loaded. Slightly verbose but justified.

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 tool with no output schema, the description references 'same response shape' as ask_pipeworx, explains the current state (no active candidate), and gives clear usage direction. Adequately complete for an agent to invoke it correctly, though it relies on ask_pipeworx's context for response details.

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 all 6 parameters documented (question plus 5 aliases). The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but the schema fully carries the burden, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly it's a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same 5,890 tools and arguments. It distinguishes from ask_pipeworx (beta vs stable) and from ask_pipeworx_grounded. Slightly relies on understanding what a 'router' is and the reference to ask_pipeworx, but the verb-resource relationship is specific.

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: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It references the stable alternative and explains the beta is for testing candidate routing improvements. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the usage context is clear.

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