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

Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: beta status, no currently active candidate, exact parity with the stable router right now, and that it is a full working router with no fallback. No contradiction with 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 front-loaded with the core identity and uses four sentences, each carrying relevant information. There is slight redundancy between 'no candidate is active' and 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly,' but overall it is efficient and readable.

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 tool with a simple single-question input and no nested objects, the description provides strong context: identity, current status, usage guidance, and relationship to the stable router. The only minor gap is that no concrete response format is described, though it does reference the same response shape as ask_pipeworx.

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%, with each parameter documented as an alias for the question. The description adds no deeper parameter semantics beyond saying arguments match ask_pipeworx, so a baseline 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 the tool as the beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same 5,743 tools, same arguments, and same response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by focusing on experimental routing improvements.

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 states when to use it: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also explains the relationship to the stable router and how results are compared, giving clear selection context.

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