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

Annotations already provide the safety profile (read-only, idempotent), so the bar is satisfied at baseline. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: this is a beta/experimental router that may have routing improvements enabled live during tests, has no fallback, and results are compared against the stable router. It explains the current state (no active candidate) and clarifies the tool is fully functional.

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 sentences are used to convey the essential distinctions: beta nature, live candidate testing, current equality with stable, and full functionality. Each sentence has a clear purpose, though some detail (e.g., concrete retirement date) could be considered slightly high-level for the purpose; still, nothing 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?

The description tells the agent this is a full working router and explicitly says 'same response shape' as ask_pipeworx, compensating for the absent output schema. It does not detail response content or edge cases, but given how close it currently is to ask_pipeworx and the completeness of annotations, it provides enough context to invoke 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?

The schema already documents all six parameters with high coverage: every alias is described as an alias for 'question' and the question field has its own description. The description adds only 'same arguments as ask_pipeworx', which is redundant with the schema, so no meaningful semantic value is provided beyond what the schema already gives.

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 explicitly identifies the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal natural-language router over 5,801 tools, with the same arguments and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling twice, leaving no room for ambiguity about its function.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and clarifies that no candidate is currently active, so it behaves just like ask_pipeworx. It doesn't discuss when not to use it or mention ask_pipeworx_grounded as an alternative, but it covers the general usage decision.

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