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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: candidate routing improvements may be live under test, none are currently active as of a specific date, and the tool currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It explicitly denies a fallback failure mode by stating 'Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router,' preventing a wrong assumption about beta reliability. This is consistent with the readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive 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?

Four sentences each earn their place: identity and scope, current runtime state, usage trigger, and the no-fallback guarantee. The timestamped retirement detail supports the claim that the tool currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary repetition of schema or annotation 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 complex universal router with no output schema, the description covers the key operational facts: what the tool is, when to use it, its current state, and that it does not fall back to a degraded mode. The only gap is that the response shape is referenced as being the same as ask_pipeworx rather than described directly, which matters because no output schema exists. This is a minor shortfall since the stable sibling can supply the shape.

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 parameters including aliases thoroughly described in the input schema, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. The phrase 'same arguments' reinforces compatibility with ask_pipeworx but adds no new meaning beyond what is already structured. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description neither harms nor significantly enhances parameter understanding.

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?

States clearly that this is the beta version of ask_pipeworx, acting as an identical universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx via candidate routing improvements and labels itself as the experimental edge. This gives an agent a precise mental model of what the tool does and how it differs from siblings.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use trigger: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It explains that results are compared against the stable router to decide what merges, which implies the stable ask_pipeworx is the alternative for non-experimental routing. The beta/experimental framing further clarifies when this variant should be preferred.

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