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

Discloses meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it is experimental, candidate routing improvements are enabled live when under test, no candidate is currently active (with a retirement date), and it 'falls back to nothing' because it is a full working router. The comparison against the stable router for merge decisions is also transparently stated, which no annotation could 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?

Three sentences efficiently deliver the essential facts: identity, current status, usage instruction, and a corrective clarification about fallback behavior. The most decision-relevant detail — experimental beta — is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 an experimental router with no output schema, the description covers purpose, current state, usage, relationship to the stable alternative, and response shape ('same response shape'). The date and exact-match statement make current behavior unambiguous. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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%, with 'question' described and all aliases listed. The description reinforces that arguments match ask_pipeworx but adds no new parameter-level detail. Per baseline for high schema coverage, this is adequate but not enhanced by the description.

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?

Description states explicitly that this is a beta version of ask_pipeworx: an identical universal router with the same 5,738 tools, arguments, and response shape, differing only by candidate routing improvements. It clearly differentiates itself from the stable sibling by framing itself as the experimental edge, making its function unmistakable.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also explains the current state — no active candidate, so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly — which tells the agent what to expect right now. It doesn't explicitly say 'use ask_pipeworx for stability', but the beta-vs-stable distinction effectively implies the alternative.

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