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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds context that no candidate is active currently, so it behaves identically to ask_pipeworx right now, and reveals the experimental/live-comparison nature. It does not describe response shape or failure modes, but the table stakes are covered by 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 a compact paragraph covering purpose, usage, current status, and a vivid but brief reason to prefer it. The first sentence is a bit long, but every sentence adds useful information and the structure is front-loaded with the purpose.

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 beta alias of a well-known sibling, the description includes the key facts: same 5,767 tools, same args, same response shape, currently identical to stable, experimental edge, and comparison purpose. It could mention multi-turn behavior or response caching, but within the context of the sibling ask_pipeworx this is largely sufficient.

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%, so the schema documents all six parameters fully. The description adds that it accepts the same arguments as ask_pipeworx and confirms the parameter contract, but no additional semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource (beta version of ask_pipeworx), describes 'universal router' scope, and differentiates from ask_pipeworx by the experimental routing. It acknowledges current state, which helps an agent select it appropriately.

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 to use it like ask_pipeworx when wanting the newest routing, and notes results are compared against the stable router. Names ask_pipeworx as the alternative and implies preference for the non-beta tool unless the newest routing is needed.

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