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

Adds substantial context beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive annotations: the live candidate-testing behavior, the current inactive state with a specific retirement date ('retired on outcome evidence 2026-07-26'), the explicit guarantee that 'this IS a full working router' rather than a fallback stub, and the comparison-to-stable workflow. This fully discloses the experimental nature and current operational state.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with identity, then state, then usage, then functionality guarantee. Every sentence earns its place; the retirement date and alias note are specific without padding. Slightly dense phrasing ('Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router') but the clarification is valuable.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational facts: what it routes to, current state, how to invoke it, and that 'same response shape' ties the output format to the known ask_pipeworx. Annotations cover safety. Minor gaps: the actual response contents are not described, and there's no guidance on choosing between this and ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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% — all six parameters (question plus five aliases) are documented with identical descriptions. The description says 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx but adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full semantic burden.

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 opens with 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router (same 5,798 tools, same arguments, same response shape)' — a specific identity with concrete scope. It clearly distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx and implicitly from ask_pipeworx_grounded by positioning as the experimental edge of the same router.

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 an explicit when-to-use condition: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It names the stable alternative and explains the evaluation workflow ('results are compared against the stable router to decide what merges'). However, it never explicitly states when NOT to use it (e.g., when stability guarantees matter), leaving that to inference from 'experimental edge.'

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