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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context: live candidate routing improvements may be active, none are currently active, and the tool behaves identically to ask_pipeworx at present. This clarifies the experimental edge without contradicting 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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core definition. Every sentence adds information: identity, current state, usage guidance, and operational reassurance. No redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool's experimental nature and absence of output schema, the description covers everything needed: what it is, how it differs from stable, current behavior, and that it's a fully working router. The alias-heavy schema is fully covered, and an agent can invoke it correctly based on this text.

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 parameters documented as aliases for question. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 this as the beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router across 5,743 tools, and explicitly contrasts it with the stable ask_pipeworx sibling. It names the resource and scope precisely, distinguishing it from siblings like 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?

States when to use it: 'when you want the newest routing.' It names the stable alternative (ask_pipeworx) and explains the experimental context, though it doesn't provide explicit 'don't use' scenarios. The guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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