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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses live behavior: candidate routing improvements are enabled live when under test, no candidate is currently active, and it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It also clarifies that this is a full working router, not a fallback, which is valuable behavioral context not present in 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and provides necessary context about current status and candidate testing. The specific retirement date is marginally transient, but it earns its place by explaining why the tool currently behaves identically to ask_pipeworx. Slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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 natural-language router with a simple schema and read-only annotations, the description covers purpose, current behavior, relationship to the stable router, and response-shape consistency. Everything an agent needs to call it correctly and interpret its output is present.

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 all aliases and the question field fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries the 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 states a specific action and resource: it is a beta version of ask_pipeworx acting as a universal router over 5,743 tools with the same arguments and response shape. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by positioning itself as the experimental routing edge.

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 gives clear guidance: "Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing." This implies the stable ask_pipeworx is the alternative for normal/stable routing. It does not fully spell out when not to use it, but the experimental-edge framing makes the intended use clear.

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