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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: no candidate is currently active, it matches ask_pipeworx exactly at present, and it is an experimental edge. It doesn't detail output variability or rate limits, but the added experimental context is meaningful.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: beta relationship, identical scope, current state, usage instruction, comparison purpose, and fallback clarification. Information is front-loaded and the administrative note about the retired candidate is relevant context, not noise.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it is, current behavior, how to invoke it, and how it relates to the stable alternative. Nothing essential is missing.

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 the single required question parameter and aliases fully documented. The description reinforces that arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, adding confidence without redundant detail. This slightly exceeds the baseline of 3 by clarifying the argument surface is shared with the stable tool.

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 a specific verb/resource: a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same 5,714 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable sibling by noting candidate routing improvements may be active, and is clearly differentiated from other sibling tools.

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?

Explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and explains results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. It also clarifies it is a full working router, not a fallback stub, giving clear when-to-use context versus the alternative.

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