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

Beyond the annotations, it reveals that candidate routing improvements are enabled live only when under test, that none is currently active, and that behavior currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It also clarifies this is a fully working router, not a stub, which is valuable behavioral context the annotations cannot 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 dense but not bloated; every sentence contributes meaningful context about the beta status, current active state, and usage. It is slightly long because it packs a lot of detail, but the information is all relevant and correctly front-loaded.

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 tool with a simple one-parameter schema, rich annotations, and no output schema, this description is nearly complete. It covers what the tool is, its relationship to the stable router, when to use it, current behavior, and expected response consistency. It only lacks explicit guidance on choosing between the beta and grounded variants.

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 documentation covers all parameters at 100%, including a clear description for the required 'question' field and its aliases. The description adds no param-specific semantics, but the schema already carries that burden, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 is explicit: this is the beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It clearly distinguishes itself from the stable sibling by labeling the experimental version and explaining the routing-improvement mechanism.

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?

It explicitly says to 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and notes that results are compared against the stable router. It could more directly state when to choose ask_pipeworx or ask_pipeworx_grounded instead, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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