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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it is a full working router, not a fallback; candidate improvements are enabled live; none is currently active; results are compared against the stable router for merge decisions. It also clarifies that behavior may differ between beta and stable versions when candidates are active, but currently matches exactly.

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 appropriately sized for a beta variant and front-loads the key fact that it's a beta version. It explains identity, current state, usage, and the comparison workflow in a compact paragraph. Slightly dense with details like the retirement date and tool count, but those are specific and relevant.

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 router tool with a fully documented schema and rich annotations, the description covers identity, current parity with the stable version, fallback behavior, and how to use it. No output schema exists, but since the response shape is stated as identical to ask_pipeworx, an agent has all necessary context to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes 'question' and all aliases. The description adds little beyond saying 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx and that the router accepts a natural-language question/request. Since the schema fully documents the single meaningful parameter, the baseline of 3 applies; the description doesn't need to add much.

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 is specific: it identifies this tool as the beta/experimental edge of ask_pipeworx, explicitly stating it is the same universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling by its purpose of testing candidate routing improvements, and even names the current state (no active candidate, identical to ask_pipeworx).

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 states when to use it: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also contrasts with ask_pipeworx as the stable router and explains that results are compared to decide what merges. This gives explicit when-to-use and an implicit alternative (ask_pipeworx for stable routing).

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