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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses valuable behavioral context: it is experimental, no candidate is currently active so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly as of a specific date, and it falls back to nothing — it is a full working router. This dispels the misconception that 'beta' implies non-functional and explains the evaluation mechanism. No contradiction with 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 sentences, each earning its place: identity, current state, usage guidance, and a functional reassurance. The key facts are front-loaded, and the length is justified by the need to convey experimental status and parity with the stable router.

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?

Complete for a single-question routing tool: one required parameter with documented aliases, strong annotation coverage, and a pointer that the response shape matches ask_pipeworx since there is no output schema. The only gap is that the response shape reference requires the agent to consult a sibling tool.

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 the question parameter and all five aliases fully documented in the schema itself. The description only adds a marginal confirmation that arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, but doesn't contribute new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 for high schema coverage 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 identifies the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router over 5,908 tools with the same arguments and response shape. This tells the agent what it does (routes a question to a large tool landscape) and distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx and the grounded variant. It leans on the reader knowing what ask_pipeworx is, so it isn't fully self-contained.

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 states when to use it: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing,' and explains the results-comparison process against the stable router. It names the primary alternative but doesn't give exclusion criteria such as when to prefer ask_pipeworx_grounded or the stable router instead.

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