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

Annotations already signal a safe, read-only, idempotent operation, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it is a full working router rather than a stub, behavior may change when a candidate improvement is under test, and queries are compared against the stable router for merge decisions. There is no contradiction with 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 compact and front-loaded, with each sentence adding distinct information: equivalence to stable, current no-candidate state, usage guidance, and reassurance of full functionality. The repetition of 'ask_pipeworx' is slightly heavy but does not waste space.

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 an experimental router with no output schema, the description covers response shape by referencing the stable router, current candidate status, and functional guarantees. It does not detail what routing improvements are being tested, but that is not necessary for correct invocation.

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% and the input schema documents all six alias parameters, including the canonical 'question' field and its aliases. The description only says 'same arguments' and adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description identifies this as a beta version of the ask_pipeworx universal router, explicitly noting the identical tool set, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable sibling by framing it as the experimental edge. The core function of routing natural-language questions is implied through 'universal router' and the tool name, but not stated with a direct action verb.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use it: 'when you want the newest routing' and instructs to 'use it exactly like ask_pipeworx'. It also notes that no candidate is currently active, so behavior currently matches the stable router. The key alternative is covered, though it does not enumerate non-use cases or compare against all siblings.

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