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

Beyond the readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive annotations, the description reveals the experimental nature, the live candidate testing mechanism, and the current production parity. It also confirms there is no fallback—this is a fully functional router, which is important 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?

The description is a dense paragraph covering purpose, status, usage, and fallback behavior. It front-loads the beta classification and avoids redundancy, though the historical date of the retired candidate is extra detail that could be omitted without losing essential guidance.

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 that is a beta variant of a known router, the description covers all necessary context: identical interface, current parity, experimental routing, usage conditions, and confirmation that it is a complete tool. There is no output schema, but the response shape is stated to match ask_pipeworx, so no critical information 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 each parameter is documented as an alias for 'question'. The description adds that arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, but this does not meaningfully expand on the schema. The baseline of 3 applies since structured schema carries the semantic weight.

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 states this is the beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with identical tools, arguments, and response shape. It differentiates itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by noting candidate routing improvements and explicitly says it is a full working router, so an agent can understand exactly what it does.

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 explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and notes that results are compared against the stable router. The current state (no active candidate) is disclosed, giving clear guidance on when it is appropriate to invoke.

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