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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it is an experimental router with live candidate testing, currently identical to the stable version, and it is a fully functional router rather than a fallback stub. It could mention more about possible behavioral differences when a candidate is active, but the experimental nature is clearly implied.

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 well-structured: core identity first, current state second, usage guidance third, and a brief reassurance about being a full router. It is concise, though the specific retirement date detail adds slight verbosity without significantly improving agent understanding. Each sentence generally earns its place.

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, the description provides sufficient context: it is a full router, currently identical to ask_pipeworx, accepts the same arguments, and returns the same response shape. Since there is no output schema, referencing ask_pipeworx's response shape fills the gap. It does not enumerate the 5,743 tools, but that is unnecessary for invoking 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with each parameter described as an alias for the 'question' field. The description only says 'same arguments' and 'use it exactly like ask_pipeworx,' which does not add specific semantic detail beyond the schema. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, a baseline score 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 clearly identifies this as the beta version of the ask_pipeworx universal router, specifying that it has the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling by highlighting its experimental role and current equivalence. This is a specific, non-tautological statement of purpose.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and notes that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. It names the alternative (ask_pipeworx) and gives a clear selection condition, while also noting that no candidate is currently active so behavior matches the stable version. Nothing is left to inference.

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