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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: it is an experimental edge, candidates may be enabled live, it currently matches the stable router, and it falls back to nothing because it is a full working router.

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 somewhat verbose, with status details like the retirement date, but every sentence adds meaningful information about beta status, current equivalence, and usage. It is front-loaded with the core identity and use guidance before the more peripheral experimental details.

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 is strong for a router tool with rich annotations and no output schema: it tells the agent the tool is a full working router, matches ask_pipeworx, and has no fallback. It relies on 'same response shape' rather than specifying the response format, but the sibling reference and clear usage guidance cover most of what an agent needs.

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 high (100%), so the schema carries the parameter weight. The description adds no direct parameter detail beyond saying the router takes the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, which directs the agent to the sibling tool but does not explicitly clarify the question/alias relationship.

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: it is a beta version of the ask_pipeworx universal router, with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling ask_pipeworx by noting candidate routing improvements and experimental status.

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 current state (no candidate active, so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly), which removes ambiguity about choosing between the beta and stable versions.

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