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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the experimental edge, current absence of an active candidate, the fact that it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, its comparison role, and the explicit statement that it has no fallback but 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 compact and front-loaded, with the core definition in the first sentence. The additional detail about the retired candidate date and the no-fallback clarification is useful but slightly more verbose than strictly necessary.

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 universal routing tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains beta status, current behavior, the relationship to the stable router, and that the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx. An agent has enough context to select and 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 description coverage is 100% and every parameter is already described, including aliases. The description only refers generically to 'same arguments' and adds no parameter-level meaning, so 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 immediately identifies this as the beta version of ask_pipeworx and explains that it is an identical universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape. This clearly differentiates it from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling as the experimental routing variant.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also explains that results are compared against the stable router, which clarifies when this variant is relevant versus the standard ask_pipeworx.

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