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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses dynamic behavior: candidate routing improvements can be 'enabled live' and that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. It also reveals the current inactive-candidate state with a retirement date, which is valuable context. It does not explain what a routing improvement concretely changes, but the experimental/production-equivalent distinction is well covered.

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 sentences, each earning its place: definition of the beta, current status with evidence, explicit usage directive, and a no-fallback clarification. The information is front-loaded and avoids repetition. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the schema or annotations.

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 covers the tool's identity, current parity with ask_pipeworx, usage instruction, and experimental nature. Although no output schema exists, the description's 'same response shape' remark ties to the stable sibling, and the annotations cover safety and openness. Missing details like what a routing change actually affects are minor given the description's clarity.

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%, with the input schema fully documenting 'question' and all five aliases (q, text, input, query, prompt) as equivalents. The description says 'same arguments' but adds no meaning beyond the schema. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter-semantic burden.

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: identical universal router' and immediately specifies it routes to the same 5,724 tools with the same arguments and response shape. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling ask_pipeworx as the experimental edge, while noting it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. The verb-resource relationship is explicit and unambiguous.

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 states 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing,' giving an explicit condition for selection. It also clarifies 'No candidate is active right now... so this currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly' and 'Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router,' which prevents the agent from thinking it needs a fallback. Alternatives and exclusions are handled implicitly but clearly through the contrast with the stable router.

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