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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description goes beyond them by revealing the same 5,798 tools, same arguments and response shape, the fact that no routing candidate is active since 2026-07-26, and that it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It also states 'Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router', which is meaningful behavioral context.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the tool and its scope, the second gives current state, the third gives usage guidance and clarifies it is a fully working router. No fluff, and the identity is front-loaded.

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 beta router with 6 schema-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it is, how to use it, when to prefer it, current parity with ask_pipeworx, and the response shape via reference to the stable sibling. Annotations cover safety, schema covers parameters, so nothing is missing.

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% and every parameter is already described as an alias for 'question', so the structured data does the heavy lifting. The description only says 'same arguments' generically and adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the 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 opens with 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router' and further states 'same 5,798 tools, same arguments, same response shape', making clear this is a query router. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by calling out candidate routing improvements and the experimental edge, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing'. It also explains the comparison against the stable router to decide merges. It does not spell out an explicit 'do not use when' exclusion, but the 'experimental edge' label conveys the context, so a 4 is fair.

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