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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable context about the experimental nature, the current inactive candidate status, and the fact that it is a fully functional router, not a fallback. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 four sentences long and front-loads the key identity (beta version of ask_pipeworx) before explaining the current state and usage. While slightly verbose with details like the retirement date and tool count, each sentence adds information and the structure is logical. It earns a 4 rather than 5 due to minor redundancy.

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 tool is complex (a router with thousands of tools) and has no output schema. The description explains its behavior, current state, usage, and that it returns results comparable to the stable router. It does not explicitly describe the response format, but it references the same response shape as ask_pipeworx, which is sufficient given the sibling context. It covers the essential aspects an agent needs to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters including the required 'question' and its aliases. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond saying 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which provides no new meaning. 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 states the tool is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router that handles the same 5,801 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from siblings by labeling itself as beta and notes it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. The purpose is explicit and specific.

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?

The description explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and mentions results are compared against the stable router. It clearly implies the alternative (ask_pipeworx) and the condition for selection. This is direct and actionable.

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