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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful context beyond them: candidate routing improvements are enabled live only during tests, none are currently active, and the tool is a full working router rather than a fallback. No annotation contradiction.

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 compact and front-loads the essential identity (beta version, identical router) before current status and usage. Each sentence contributes either scoping, behavior, or usage context, though the parenthetical list and retirement date add slight density without hurting clarity.

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 complexity of a universal router and no output schema, the description covers current status, usage, and fallback behavior well. However, the return value is only described indirectly as 'same response shape' as ask_pipeworx; without that sibling's definition, an agent would not know what the response contains. Still, this is a minor gap because the schema and sibling context cover most invocation needs.

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%, so the schema already documents the parameter and its aliases. The description adds only that the arguments are the same as ask_pipeworx, which is helpful for comparison but does not materially extend the schema's parameter semantics. 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?

Description states a specific resource ('beta version of ask_pipeworx') and a clear behavior: an identical universal router with candidate routing improvements. It explicitly names the stable sibling ask_pipeworx and distinguishes this tool as the experimental edge, so an agent can tell them apart from the description alone.

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 wanting the newest routing and notes that results are compared to the stable router. It also clarifies that with no active candidate it matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It lacks an explicit 'do not use this when' statement, but the beta/'experimental edge' framing implies the stable alternative.

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