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

Annotations already establish readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description goes beyond these by disclosing the live experimental state (candidate routing may be active), the current parity with ask_pipeworx as of the retirement date, and the important fact that there is no fallback—this is a fully working router. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot express.

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 key distinction (beta/identical router), then gives current state, usage, and fallback behavior in a compact flow. It is a little repetitive about matching ask_pipeworx exactly, and the specific retirement date may become stale, but there is 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 a live experimental router with no output schema, the description covers current behavior, parity with the stable sibling, and fallback. It relies on the agent knowing ask_pipeworx's response shape ('same response shape'), which is reasonable given the sibling is present, but the description could be slightly more self-contained.

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 provides 100% coverage, including the primary `question` parameter plus all five aliases and their exact semantics. The description adds no parameter-level details, which is acceptable at the baseline since the schema carries the full 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 names a specific resource ('beta version of ask_pipeworx') and a precise role ('identical universal router' across 5,743 tools), and immediately distinguishes it from its sibling: the experimental candidate router versus the stable ask_pipeworx. An agent can tell what it is and how it differs without opening the schema.

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 explicitly says 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing', naming the alternative and the condition that selects it. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the stable/router contrast makes the intended choice clear.

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