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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description transparently explains the experimental nature: candidate improvements are enabled live only when under test, no candidate is currently active, it is a full working router with no fallback, and it currently behaves identically to ask_pipeworx. This is valuable context that structured annotations do not provide.

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 front-loaded with the key identity and experimental status, and each sentence adds relevant usable context. It is somewhat verbose, especially the specific retirement date of 2026-07-26, but the extra detail supports the 'no candidate currently active' claim without becoming wasteful.

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?

The description provides enough context to select and invoke the tool: what it is, how it relates to ask_pipeworx, when to use it, and its current behavior. It relies on ask_pipeworx for response-shape details rather than describing them standalone, but that equivalence is stated explicitly. No critical missing information prevents correct invocation.

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 all parameters and aliases already documented. The description only says 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the full parameter documentation burden.

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 a beta version of ask_pipeworx: a universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape. It explicitly differentiates itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by its experimental candidate routing and states that it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly.

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 gives an explicit usage instruction: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also explains that results are compared against the stable router to decide what merges. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or recommend the stable version for non-experimental use, so it lacks a clear exclusion condition.

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