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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and safe behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it is a live experimental router that may change routing behavior when a candidate is under test, currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and does not fall back to anything—it is a full working router. This volatility and non-static nature is important behavioral context.

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 at three sentences and front-loads the core identity ('Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router'). It includes some operational nuance (retirement date, comparison logic) that is useful but not strictly necessary, so it is not maximally tight but still earns its content.

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 universal router with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does, its current state, usage instruction, and relationship to the stable sibling. It relies on the sibling ask_pipeworx for detailed response shape, which is acceptable given the explicit 'same response shape' reference. It could have briefly described the routing behavior, but the overall context is complete enough for safe 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 coverage is 100% with all six parameters documented as aliases for 'question', so the schema carries the full parameter meaning. The description adds no new parameter detail beyond referencing 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx. Baseline 3 is appropriate since structured data 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 clearly states this is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same 5,724 tools, arguments, and response shape. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the stable sibling, so an agent can tell what it does and how it differs.

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 explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when wanting the newest routing, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not state when to prefer the stable version, but the experimental nature and the comparison against the stable router imply the context. This is close to explicit exclusions but missing a direct 'when not to use' statement.

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