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

Annotations already cover safety (read-only, idempotent, not destructive). The description adds useful behavioral context about the beta process: candidate routing is enabled only when under test, and there is no fallback—it is a full working router, not a degraded stub. This clarifies what 'beta' means and prevents the agent from assuming partial functionality.

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 front-loads the core identity as a beta router, then covers current state, usage condition, and fallback behavior. Each sentence adds functional information, though the retirement timestamp is somewhat detailed. It is not overly verbose and has no filler.

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 variant, the description covers identity, current state (no active candidate), usage condition, comparison process, and absence of fallback. It references the same response shape as ask_pipeworx, which suffices given no output schema. The only minor gap is not describing ask_pipeworx's core routing behavior directly, but that is inherited 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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters, each documented as an alias for question, so the schema carries the semantic burden. The description only says 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx without adding alias details or usage nuance. Baseline 3 applies because schema coverage is high and the description adds no parameter-level value.

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 purpose: a beta universal router identical to ask_pipeworx (same 5,908 tools, same arguments, same response shape) with experimental routing improvements. It clearly differentiates itself from the sibling ask_pipeworx as the experimental edge while remaining a full working router. This is not a tautology and gives concrete identity.

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 gives an explicit usage condition: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and notes results are compared against the stable router. It names the alternative ask_pipeworx and specifies the selection criterion. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement, but the condition is clear enough.

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