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

Goes well beyond the annotations by explaining live candidate routing, the current absence of an active candidate, the exact-match state with ask_pipeworx, and that it is a full working router with no fallback. This gives the agent important operational context about volatility and experimental behavior that annotations alone do not convey.

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 thorough and well-structured, opening with the beta identity and then covering current state, usage, and experimental behavior. It contains some redundancy, such as 'No candidate is active right now' plus 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly', and a very specific retirement date that is not strictly necessary, but each sentence largely earns its place.

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 tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it is, current parity with the stable version, how and when to use it, and the response-shape guarantee. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is materially 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%, with all aliases clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no further parameter-level detail beyond saying 'same arguments', so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden and the description stays at the baseline.

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 this as the beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router over 5,798 tools with the same arguments and response shape. It distinguishes itself from siblings by characterizing it as the experimental edge, while noting it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly.

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 tells the agent to use it 'exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and explains results are compared against the stable router. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, such as 'prefer ask_pipeworx for stable production use', but the beta/stable contrast makes this reasonably clear.

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