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

The description adds substantial behavioral context: it is a full working router with no fallback, identical to ask_pipeworx when no candidate is active, and results are compared to the stable router to decide on merges. Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description complements these without contradiction. This is more than enough transparency.

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 information-dense and front-loads the core identity and behavior. The parenthetical retirement date and repeated emphasis on 'identical' and 'matches exactly' add slight redundancy, but every sentence contributes useful context. It is concise without being under-specified.

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 tool with no output schema, it references the same response shape as ask_pipeworx and instructs to use it exactly like the stable sibling, which gives an agent enough to invoke it correctly. Combined with the rich annotations and complete parameter schema, the description is close to complete. A slightly more explicit description of the response format would push it to 5.

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% and all six parameters are documented as aliases for the single required 'question' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond noting 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx. Since the schema carries the full semantic load, 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, a universal router covering 5,724 tools with the same arguments and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable sibling by noting that candidate routing improvements are enabled live during tests. This goes beyond the name/title and states the tool's function and scope precisely.

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', naming the sibling and giving a concrete selection criterion. It also notes that no candidate is currently active, so behavior matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It could be stronger about when to prefer the stable router over the beta, but the guidance is clear enough.

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