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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description's burden is lower. It adds valuable behavioral context: live candidate routing improvements can be toggled, no candidate is currently active as of 2026-07-26, and this is a full working router rather than a fallback wrapper. No contradiction with the annotations is apparent.

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 essential beta-versus-stable framing and each sentence contributes useful information. The inclusion of the retirement date and 'falls back to nothing' detail is somewhat granular but still serves the agent's decision-making without becoming bloated.

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 that there is no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior, current state, usage, and relation to the stable router. It even notes that the response shape matches ask_pipeworx, which gives the agent enough context to invoke it correctly. Nothing critical for selecting or using this tool is missing.

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 six parameters clearly documented as aliases for 'question' in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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 variant of the ask_pipeworx universal router and explicitly states it covers the same 5,724 tools, arguments, and response shape. It is differentiated from the stable sibling by its experimental nature, though its core function is defined largely by reference to another tool rather than independently.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It names the stable alternative and explains that results are compared against it to decide what merges. It does not explicitly list when not to use it, such as when stable behavior is required, but the comparison framing makes that exclusion reasonably clear.

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