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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those hints: the tool is experimental, routing improvements are enabled live only when a candidate is under test, and no candidate is currently active so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly. This is useful, though the phrasing 'Falls back to nothing' is slightly confusing and could have been clearer.

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 longer than average but every sentence contributes key information: identity, current behavior, usage guidance, and reassurance that it is a fully working router. It is front-loaded with the most important facts and structured logically. Some operational detail, such as the exact retirement date, is somewhat transient but still relevant to explaining the current state.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by stating that the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx. It also clarifies the current experimental state and the absence of any active candidate, which prevents the agent from assuming different behavior. The main missing piece is a concrete description of what a response looks like, but the cross-reference to ask_pipeworx covers this adequately.

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 documented as an alias for 'question.' The description adds little parameter-level semantics beyond saying the tool accepts the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, but the schema already carries the full burden. A baseline of 3 is appropriate because the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter information.

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 a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes it from the stable router by emphasizing the experimental routing improvements and current exact-match behavior. This is a specific verb-plus-resource statement that an agent can act on and differentiate from ask_pipeworx.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also implicitly names the stable alternative (ask_pipeworx) and explains that results are compared against it to decide what merges. This provides clear selection guidance without requiring the agent to infer usage from the schema alone.

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