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

Annotations already carry read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive signals. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: candidate routing improvements are enabled live when under test, no candidate is active as of a specific date, the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx, and results are compared against the stable router. This goes well beyond the structured hints.

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 moderately long but every sentence earns its place: identity, current status, usage direction, and experimental nature are all covered without fluff. Critical information like 'no candidate active right now' is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 simple one-required-parameter tool with rich annotations and no output schema, this description is complete. It explains what the tool is, what it does, how it differs from siblings, when to use it, and its current operational state. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the question parameter and its aliases. The description mentions 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx but adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the input schema provides, so the high-coverage baseline of 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 states a specific purpose: a beta universal router identical to ask_pipeworx with candidate routing improvements. It clearly distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded by framing it as the experimental edge, while explaining that no candidate is currently active so it 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 explicitly tells the agent when to use it: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also explains the relationship to the stable router and clarifies that this is a full working router, not a stub or fallback-only tool.

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