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

Annotations already provide readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, and the description adds substantial behavioral value beyond those: live candidate-testing status, the fact that no candidate is currently active, the retirement date, and the outcome-based comparison against the stable router. No contradiction with 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 dense but every clause earns its place: core identity is front-loaded, current experimental state is specified with a concrete date, usage direction is explicit, and the no-fallback clarification prevents a common misinterpretation. No filler or unnecessary repetition.

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 an experimental universal router with no output schema, the description covers current behavior, relationship to the stable router, and safety profile. It relies on ask_pipeworx to convey the response shape and does not add explicit exclusions for other sibling tools, but it is otherwise sufficiently complete 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%: all six parameters are self-documented as aliases for 'question', with a clear canonical description. The tool description only says 'same arguments' and adds no parameter-format or usage nuance beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Clearly identifies the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx, describes it as an identical universal router over 5,767 tools, and distinguishes it from the stable sibling via experimental routing candidates. It states the same arguments and response shape, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and clarifies that it is a full working router with no fallback. It gives a clear condition and names the stable alternative, though it does not explicitly mention when to avoid it or compare against ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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