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

Annotations already provide readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive hints. The description adds valuable context: beta status, no active candidate as of 2026-07-26, current exact match to stable ask_pipeworx, live comparison for potential merges, and explicit statement that it 'falls back to nothing'. This goes beyond the structured fields by explaining the experimental lifecycle and current operational state.

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 front-loaded with the core concept ('Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router...') and each subsequent sentence adds distinct information: current state, usage instruction, and clarification of non-fallback status. Though there is slight emphasis repetition ('same', 'exactly'), every sentence earns its place and the structure moves from identity to behavior to usage.

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?

As a complex router with 5,724 tools and no output schema, the description fully conveys its experimental nature, current equivalence to the stable router, and usage intent. It lacks an explicit description of the response shape (only 'same response shape' without detailing what that shape is) and does not warn about potential experimental degradation, but given that it currently matches ask_pipeworx and annotations cover safety, it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 schema already covers all 6 parameters with 100% descriptive coverage, including the primary 'question' and its aliases. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness; the baseline of 3 applies because no additional meaning is required or provided.

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 a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router that dispatches natural-language questions across 5,724 tools. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by its experimental routing improvements and explicitly notes it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. This gives an agent a clear, non-tautological 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?

It directly instructs to 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and contrasts with the stable router, implicitly naming the alternative. It also clarifies that this is not a fallback but a fully functional router, preventing misuse. This is explicit when-to-use guidance with a clear alternative.

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