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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add contextual behavioral detail. It does so by explaining the live candidate-routing mechanism, the currently inactive state, and that this 'IS a full working router' rather than a degraded fallback. It does not describe rate limits or error behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.

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 uses four sentences to cover identity, current behavior, usage guidance, and fallback status; most clauses add distinct value. It is slightly verbose with the specific retirement date and some repeated 'same' phrasing, but it is front-loaded with the most important facts.

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 complex router with no output schema, the description conveys the experimental status, relationship to ask_pipeworx, and current equivalence well. However, it does not describe the actual return value or behavior beyond saying 'same response shape,' which assumes the agent already understands the stable ask_pipeworx 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%, and the input schema already documents the primary parameter and all five aliases with a clear description: 'Your question or request in natural language.' The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond saying 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, so it stays at the baseline for fully documented schema.

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' and characterizes it as an 'identical universal router' with the same 5,724 tools, arguments, and response shape. It clearly signals that this is the experimental edge of the stable router rather than a separate feature. It stops short of defining what 'router' behavior actually does, which leaves some ambiguity.

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 explains that results are compared against the stable router. It also notes the current state—no active candidate, so it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly—which helps an agent decide whether the beta offers anything different. It does not explicitly state when to prefer the stable ask_pipeworx or ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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