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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds key behavioral context: live candidate routing may be enabled, currently no candidate is active so it matches stable behavior exactly, and it is a fully working router with no fallback. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 informative and mostly efficient, covering purpose, current state, usage, and behavior in four sentences. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but each sentence adds useful context about beta status and routing behavior.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating that the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx. It covers the argument compatibility, current behavior, experimental nature, and lack of fallback, which is enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 parameter aliases documented in the schema. The description notes 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx but provides no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 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 identifies the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router over 5,714 tools, with candidate routing improvements. This clearly states what it does and distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx 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?

It explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx 'when you want the newest routing,' giving a clear condition for use. It does not discuss when not to use it or mention the grounded sibling, but the primary alternative is addressed through the stable router comparison.

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