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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful context beyond those: candidate routing improvements, the current no-candidate state with a retirement date, identical response shape, and a clear statement that this is a full working router rather than a fallback wrapper. This does not contradict any annotation.

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 reasonably compact and well-structured: definition first, current status second, usage guidance last. The final 'Falls back to nothing' sentence is slightly cryptic, but it is immediately clarified by the next clause, and 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 read-only, idempotent router with a fully documented schema, the description covers purpose, current experimental state, relationship to the stable sibling, and return shape via 'same response shape.' It does not explain the routing mechanism in depth, but an agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description only says 'same arguments' and adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema itself already documents all six parameters and their aliases clearly.

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 states its function as a universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape. It clearly differentiates the tool from the stable sibling by the candidate-routing experiment, so an agent can understand exactly what this tool is for.

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 use condition: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing,' and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It does not explicitly say 'use ask_pipeworx when you need stability,' but the beta and experimental framing strongly implies the alternative.

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