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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. Beyond that, the description discloses the live candidate-routing behavior, that no candidate is currently active (retired on 2026-07-26), and that 'falls back to nothing' means it is a complete working router rather than a lightweight wrapper. This is valuable contextual detail beyond the structured 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 about four sentences and front-loads the essential facts: beta, identical router, same tools/arguments/response shape. The final phrase 'just the experimental edge' is somewhat redundant with 'beta version,' but each sentence contributes to disambiguating the tool from its stable sibling.

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 router with no output schema, the description explains the arguments, the response shape (same as ask_pipeworx), the currently identical behavior, and the experimental routing semantics. It could add a concrete example or describe the response format, but referencing ask_pipeworx is sufficient given the sibling list. No critical detail needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 documented as aliases of question. The description adds that it accepts the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, but it does not need to restate the alias semantics. Baseline 3 applies because the input schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 first sentence states exactly what the tool is: a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router over 5,743 tools with the same arguments and response shape. It explicitly references the stable sibling and conveys its distinct value as the 'experimental edge' for newest routing. An agent can distinguish this from ask_pipeworx without opening schemas.

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 a direct instruction: '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, implying stable ask_pipeworx is the alternative for production use. It lacks an explicit 'do not use if you need stable routing' exclusion, so it stops short of a 5.

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