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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds beta status, live candidate-routing experiments, the current no-active-candidate state, and 'falls back to nothing' to prevent the assumption of a stable fallback. This is significant behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide.

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?

Four dense sentences front-load identity, then cover status, usage, and fallback behavior without filler. Every sentence contributes distinct information, and the structure makes the current parity and experimental nature immediately visible.

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?

The description sufficiently covers what the tool is, how to invoke it, current behavior, and that it is a full working router with no fallback. It relies on ask_pipeworx for output shape, but explicitly states the response shape is identical; it only slightly under-specifies stability risk for production use.

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 schema already describes question, aliases, chaining preference, and profile with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds only that the arguments match ask_pipeworx, so it provides no parameter-level value beyond the high-coverage schema; 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 opens with 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx' and explicitly describes it as an identical universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It clearly ties the tool to its stable sibling and states that it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, so an agent can tell what the tool does and how it differs.

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 says 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and mentions stable-router comparison for merge decisions, giving a clear selection condition. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, such as for stable/production calls, so it stops just short of full exclusion guidance.

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