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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses that this is an experimental beta, that candidate routing improvements may be enabled or retired, that there is currently no active candidate so it matches the stable version, and that it is a full working router (falls back to nothing). This transparency about its experimental nature and current state is valuable for an AI agent deciding whether to use it.

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 each sentence adds value: beta status, identical behavior to the stable router, candidate routing state, usage guidance, and fallback behavior. It is slightly long but the length is justified by the complexity of explaining the experimental beta context. The key facts are 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?

The description covers the essential context an agent needs: what the tool is, how it relates to its stable sibling, the current experimental state, and usage guidance. It doesn't detail the response format, but no output schema exists and the description notes the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx, which is adequate for a routing tool with a single required parameter.

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?

The input schema already documents all parameters with 100% coverage, including the five aliases for 'question'. The description adds the semantic context that the same arguments are accepted as ask_pipeworx, but does not explain the parameter format beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is complete, 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 states it is the beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by being the experimental edge with candidate routing improvements. It could be slightly clearer about what 'routing' means, but it does identify the tool's purpose and its relationship to its sibling.

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 says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and notes results are compared against the stable router. It also clarifies that it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly since no candidate is active, giving clear guidance on when and how to use this tool versus the stable alternative.

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