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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that candidate routing improvements may be enabled live, that no candidate is currently active, that behavior currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and that there is no fallback — it is a full working router. This gives important context about instability and current state that annotations alone do not convey. There is no contradiction with the readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, or non-destructive hints.

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 slightly long but each sentence adds useful context: identity, current experimental state, usage instruction, and the no-fallback clarification. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary filler, though some redundancy exists between 'identical universal router' and later 'matches ask_pipeworx exactly.'

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 query-based universal router with no output schema, the description covers the key operational facts: what the tool does, current behavior, how to use it, and the experimental caveat. It relies on referencing ask_pipeworx for response shape, which is reasonable given the sibling context, though a bit more detail about expected output would fully close the gap.

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%, with clear descriptions for the 'question' parameter and its aliases, so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The description only says 'same arguments' without adding new parameter-level detail. This meets the baseline but does not add extra meaning 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx', specifies it is a 'universal router' with 'same 5,728 tools, same arguments, same response shape', and distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling. It states exactly what the tool is and how it relates to the stable version, leaving no ambiguity about its role.

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 says to 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing', which gives a clear condition for use. It also notes results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. It does not explicitly say when to prefer the stable ask_pipeworx instead, but the experimental framing makes that implication clear enough.

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