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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses dynamic behavior: candidate routing improvements are enabled live only when under test, no candidate is active now, and it falls back to nothing because it is a full working router. This gives an agent useful expectations about variability and reliability.

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 distinction, then gives current state, usage, and a reassurance about fallback behavior. Every sentence contributes important context, with no redundancy or wasted wording.

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 what it is, how it differs from the stable version, current candidate state, usage conditions, and a key clarification that it does not fall back to a limited tool. The 'same response shape' reference ties return expectations to the well-known sibling. This is complete enough for an agent to call 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?

The input schema covers all parameters and their descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only that it accepts the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, which is helpful context but not new parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

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 identifies this as the beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with candidate routing improvements. It differentiates itself from the stable sibling by describing the experimental edge and explicitly noting it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly.

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 usage guidance: use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing. It also implies the stable router is the alternative for comparison, though it could more sharply state when NOT to use the beta.

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