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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining that candidate routing improvements are enabled live whenever under test, that no candidate is currently active, and that despite being experimental, this is a full working router rather than a fallback. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnly/idempotent 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 front-loaded with the beta identity and includes useful operational details about candidate testing and current status. It is slightly longer than necessary, with the retirement date being a minor extra, but overall each sentence contributes meaning.

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 tells the agent everything essential: it is identical to ask_pipeworx, accepts the same arguments, returns the same response shape, and is a working router. It could go further with an example or more detail about how routing results are compared, but it is sufficiently complete 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%, so the input schema already documents the question parameter and its aliases. The description says 'same arguments' but adds no additional parameter-level meaning, 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 the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same tool count, arguments, and response shape. It explicitly differentiates itself from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling by its 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 states when to use the tool: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also explains the experimental context and that results are compared against the stable router. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternative siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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