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

Beyond the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive annotations, the description reveals important behavioral traits: candidate routing improvements are 'enabled live whenever one is under test,' no candidate is active right now, and it 'falls back to nothing' as a full working router. This gives the agent an accurate model of experimental variance and current parity.

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 compact and well-structured: it defines the tool, states current status, gives usage direction, and clarifies fallback behavior in four sentences. The detail about the retired candidate and date is purposeful because it explains why current behavior matches the stable version. No sentence is wasted.

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 routing tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what the tool is, how it compares to ask_pipeworx, when to use it, current routing state, and that it is a complete working router with no fallback. The agent can safely select and call it correctly.

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 six parameters fully described as aliases of the single required 'question' parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond saying it takes 'the same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which is acceptable but not additive since the schema already carries full weight.

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 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx' and an 'identical universal router' over 5,798 tools. It explicitly differentiates it from the stable sibling by framing it as the experimental edge, so an agent can distinguish it from ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also explains the comparison workflow against the stable router and notes that no candidate is active, so current behavior matches ask_pipeworx exactly. This clearly states when to choose this tool over the stable alternative.

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