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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial context beyond that: the experimental candidate-testing mechanism, a concrete current state (no active candidate as of 2026-07-26, so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly), and the no-fallback guarantee that it is a full working router. This is exactly the kind of versioning/evaluation context structured annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: definition, current state with the specific retirement date, usage guidance, and a misconception-preempting clarification that the beta is not a degraded fallback. Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and there is zero redundancy.

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 complex universal router with no output schema, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: what it is, current parity with the stable router, when to use it, and response-shape parity ('same response shape' as the known sibling). All 8 parameters are defined in the schema, so nothing an agent needs to select and invoke the tool 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?

Input schema coverage is 100% — all 8 parameters are documented as aliases for 'question,' so the baseline is 3. The description only confirms argument parity with ask_pipeworx ('same arguments') without adding new meaning about content or formatting, which is acceptable since the schema fully handles the semantics.

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?

States a specific purpose: a beta universal router identical to ask_pipeworx (same 6,410 tools, same arguments, same response shape) with candidate routing improvements enabled when under test. It explicitly anchors itself to the stable sibling ask_pipeworx and differentiates as the 'experimental edge,' so an agent can distinguish it from the sibling tools without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It names the alternative (the stable router ask_pipeworx) and explains the evaluative consequence — results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. The when-not-to-use (prefer stable ask_pipeworx for production reliability) is implied rather than stated outright.

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