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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: candidate routing may be experimentally enabled live, no candidate is currently active, and it 'falls back to nothing' because it is a full working router rather than a degraded proxy. This goes well beyond the structured 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 longer than average but each sentence adds needed context: beta status, live candidate behavior, current state, usage instruction, and the reassurance that this is a full router. The specific retirement date is a minor extra detail, but overall the structure is front-loaded and purposeful.

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 it is a universal router with no output schema, the description covers current behavior, usage equivalence, routing purpose, and response-shape consistency with ask_pipeworx. It lacks explicit examples or output format, but cross-referencing ask_pipeworx's response shape is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description references 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx and confirms the response shape, but it does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema already documents for question and its aliases.

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 universal router over 5,798 tools, and explicitly distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx by noting it carries 'candidate routing improvements.' This gives a specific verb-plus-resource framing and differentiates it from sibling tools.

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 usage guidance: '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 to avoid it or name an alternative for stable/grounded use, so it stops short of full when-not coverage.

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