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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: candidate routing improvements may be live, no candidate is currently active, and it is a full working router with no fallback. This is transparent about the experimental nature without contradicting the annotations.

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 information-dense and front-loads the essential identity: beta version, identical router, experimental edge. The parenthetical retirement date is slightly extraneous but not bloated. Each sentence contributes to clarifying current state, usage, and fallback behavior.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by saying 'same response shape' and 'same arguments,' effectively deferring to ask_pipeworx. It also explains that no candidate is currently active and that this is a full working router. It is complete enough for a variant tool, though a short description of the actual response envelope would make it fully self-contained.

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% and the 'question' parameter already documents all aliases. The tool description only adds 'same arguments,' which is not parameter-specific information. Given the high schema coverage, the 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 clearly identifies this as the beta variant of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same 5,908 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes it from the stable sibling by its experimental routing status. It relies somewhat on the agent knowing what ask_pipeworx does, but 'universal router' plus the explicit relationship makes the purpose clear.

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 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing,' which gives a clear when-to-use condition. It also notes that results are compared against the stable router. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the beta-versus-stable distinction is sufficient guidance.

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