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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable operational context: candidate routing improvements are enabled live when under test, no candidate is active right now, and there is no fallback — this is a fully working experimental router, not a wrapper.

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 a compact paragraph with every sentence contributing meaningful context: beta nature, current status, usage instruction, and fallback behavior. Some repetition of the 'matches ask_pipeworx' idea exists, but it is not padded or off-topic.

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?

Given the rich annotations, 100% parameter schema coverage, and the description's coverage of current routing status, relationship to the stable router, and fallback behavior, an agent has all essential context to invoke the tool correctly. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit statement that the response shape matches 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 description coverage is 100%, with every parameter explicitly documented as an alias for 'question'. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond saying the tool uses the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, which is adequate given the schema's completeness.

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 ask_pipeworx, a universal router over the same 5,798 tools with the same arguments and response shape. It also distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by noting candidate routing improvements, making its role and scope explicit.

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' and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It provides clear usage context and names the primary alternative, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or address grounded/other sibling variants.

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