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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond those annotations: candidate router improvements are enabled live only when under test, no candidate is active right now, and this is a full working router with no fallback. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure for an experimental variant.

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 compact and front-loaded with the beta identity, then explains current state, usage, and fallback behavior. The specific retirement date is slightly extra but supports the claim that no candidate is active. Every sentence contributes useful decision-relevant information.

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?

Given six schema-covered aliases and strong annotations, the description is complete enough to invoke safely: it states the routing purpose, current parity with ask_pipeworx, and experimental nature. The one gap is that the response shape is referenced only as identical to ask_pipeworx rather than summarized, which is acceptable if the stable tool's definition is known.

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%, with all six properties documented and question aliases explicitly listed. The description only restates that arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, which adds little beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because 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 identifies this as the beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router that routes questions across the same 5,798 tools with the same arguments and response shape. It clearly differentiates from the stable ask_pipeworx by stressing the experimental/candidate-testing nature. It would be stronger with a plain statement of what the router returns or accomplishes, but the intent is clear.

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 to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is desired, and it explains that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. It also notes that no candidate is active, so behavior currently matches ask_pipeworx. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the stable/experimental comparison makes the choice reasonably clear.

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