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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by revealing the live candidate routing mechanism, stating that no candidate is currently active, explaining that it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and clarifying that it is a full working router with no fallback. This is rich behavioral context that directly affects how an agent should treat the tool.

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 core identity, current state, and usage guidance in a compact four-sentence structure. The specific retirement date is arguably extra detail, but it supports the claim that no candidate is active without making the description unwieldy.

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 that this is a beta variant of a known sibling, the description covers what it is, how it behaves, when to use it, and that the response shape matches ask_pipeworx. It does not describe the response format itself, but the explicit pointer to ask_pipeworx is enough when the sibling is available for reference.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of the parameters, including aliases and a full description of the question parameter. The description only says 'same arguments' and does not add parameter-specific semantics. With full schema coverage, the baseline 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 the beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It explicitly distinguishes it from the stable sibling by framing it as the experimental edge, so an agent can understand exactly what this tool is for.

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 gives an explicit usage condition: use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing. It also explains that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. It does not provide an explicit exclusion such as 'use ask_pipeworx for production', though the 'experimental edge' language implies it.

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