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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable operational context: candidate routing improvements may be live, none is currently active, and it falls back to nothing because it is a fully working router. This goes well beyond the structured hints.

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 longer than minimal but every clause adds context: identity, equivalence, current experimental state, usage instruction, and fallback assurance. It is front-loaded with the core definition and organized clearly, though slightly verbose with the specific retirement date.

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 router tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers behavior, current state, usage, and expected equivalence to ask_pipeworx. It also explains why the tool exists and how results are evaluated, leaving no major gap for correct invocation.

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%, and the schema documents all aliases for the question parameter. The description only repeats that arguments are the same as ask_pipeworx and does not add additional parameter meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a full universal router with the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable sibling by being the experimental edge, which is specific and actionable.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also explains the relationship to the stable router and what happens when candidates are or are not active, giving clear selection context.

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