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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing the beta/experimental nature, the current lack of active candidates, the last retirement date, and the fact that it falls back to nothing and is a full working router. This gives the agent important behavioral expectations not available in the schema or 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 four sentences and each sentence contributes meaningful context: purpose, current state, usage, and fallback behavior. It is somewhat detailed due to the beta-specific nuances, but it remains focused and front-loaded with the core identity. No wasted words.

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 beta variant router with no output schema, the description covers what the tool is, what it currently does, how to use it, and what not to expect. It addresses the most likely agent confusion about fallback and equivalence to ask_pipeworx. The annotations handle safety/idempotency, so no critical gap remains.

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 schema already providing aliases and a description for the question parameter. The description only adds that the arguments match ask_pipeworx, which does not materially increase parameter understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx' and explains that it is an 'identical universal router (same 5,724 tools, same arguments, same response shape)' with candidate routing improvements. This makes the tool's purpose specific and differentiates it from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling without ambiguity.

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 states '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 state when not to use it, but the note that 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly' provides practical guidance. This is clear context with a minor missing exclusion.

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