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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it is a live test edge with candidate routing improvements enabled, currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly because no candidate is active, and it falls back to nothing—a full working router, not a stub. This clarifies the experimental variability and current state, which annotations do not 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 sentences, each earning its place: identity, current status, usage instruction, and a clarification that it is not a placeholder. Front-loaded with the key relation to ask_pipeworx and no redundant or filler content.

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 complex universal router with no output schema, the description covers what it does, its current state, and how to use it, including a direct reference to the same response shape as ask_pipeworx. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly; a brief note on the expected output format would push this to 5, but that is not essential given the 'identical to ask_pipeworx' framing.

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%, so all six parameters (question plus five aliases) are fully documented in the input schema. The description itself adds no parameter-level semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate—the schema carries the full 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 states a specific verb and resource: it is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with 5,724 tools, same arguments, and same response shape. It clearly differentiates from the stable ask_pipeworx and positions itself as the experimental edge, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings.

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 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and explains that results are compared against the stable router. This gives clear when-to-use context, though it stops short of explicitly saying 'do not use when stability is required,' relying on the word 'experimental.'

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