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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavior context: candidate routing improvements may be live or inactive, it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and it is a full working router with no fallback. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 well-structured and front-loads the core identity: beta version of ask_pipeworx. It earns every sentence with concrete details like the snapshot date, current inactive state, and explicit no-fallback clarification, without unnecessary filler.

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 the tool's complexity as a universal router, the description covers the experimental status, current behavior, how it compares to the stable router, and confirms it is fully functional. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the statement that the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx, though this relies on the agent knowing that sibling.

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%, with all six parameters documented as aliases for 'question.' The description adds no per-parameter detail beyond noting that the tool uses the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, which is acceptable but not additive.

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 and states it is an identical universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx by its experimental candidate routing, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 you want the newest routing' and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but the experimental framing and comparison to the stable router imply the alternative is ask_pipeworx for stable routing.

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