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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the experimental status, the fact that candidate routing improvements are enabled live when under test, the current absence of an active candidate, and that results are compared against the stable router. It also clarifies that this is a full working router with no fallback, which is valuable behavioral context. No contradiction with the readOnly/idempotent annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core identity ('Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router') and every sentence contributes meaningful context about state, usage, or behavior. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary due to specific details like the retirement date, but there is no fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one question parameter) and the annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description provides sufficient context: current state, usage condition, and relationship to the stable router. The only gap is that the response shape is referenced as 'same response shape' rather than described, but this is acceptable given the explicit sibling reference.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the single required 'question' parameter and its aliases. The description only says 'same arguments' in reference to ask_pipeworx, adding no new parameter-level semantics, which aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 this is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable sibling by being the experimental edge with candidate routing improvements. This clearly explains what the tool does and how it relates to a specific 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?

It explicitly says 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing,' naming the alternative and the specific condition for choosing this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the beta/experimental framing implies caution and the current no-active-candidate note provides clear context.

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