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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that this is experimental, that routing improvements are enabled live when under test, that no candidate is active now, and that it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It also states it falls back to nothing and is a full working router, eliminating any concern that it is a thin wrapper. These details add significant context not inferable from the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint 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 somewhat long but every sentence earns its place: it defines the beta relationship, confirms identical behavior, gives usage direction, and clarifies fallback semantics. Information is front-loaded with the key definition first. A slight trim of the parenthetical tool/argument/response enumeration would improve conciseness, but overall it is well-structured.

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?

The description is complete for an agent to decide whether to invoke this tool: it explains what it is, how it differs from the stable version, and what the current activation state is. It does not describe the response shape in detail, but it explicitly states 'same response shape' as ask_pipeworx, which an agent can reference. Given the tool's complexity as a universal router, this is sufficient context.

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%, with the input schema fully documenting all six parameters, including the question field and five aliases. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond confirming that the arguments are the same as ask_pipeworx. Since the schema carries the full burden, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by stating it carries experimental routing improvements. The verb 'ask' plus the resource 'Pipeworx' and explicit 'universal router' make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It names the primary alternative (ask_pipeworx) and contrasts the stable router with the experimental edge. It also clarifies the current state ('No candidate is active right now') so the agent knows it currently behaves like the stable version. This is clear, actionable guidance.

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