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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: candidate routing improvements are enabled live under test, no candidate is currently active, and this is a full working router with no fallback. This operational context 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 front-loads the beta identity, then adds current status, usage guidance, and a fallback clarification in compact sentences with concrete details. Every sentence serves a purpose and none repeats the schema or annotations.

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 an agent that can inspect ask_pipeworx, this description is sufficient because it explicitly says arguments and response shape are identical. However, the description never states what the response actually looks like, and there is no output schema, leaving a moderate gap in standalone completeness.

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 thoroughly documents the question parameter and its five aliases. The description only states 'same arguments' and adds no parameter-specific detail, so it neither improves nor needs to compensate for the 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 this as the beta version of ask_pipeworx and describes it as an identical universal router over the same 5,743 tools, which conveys its purpose and distinguishes it from the stable router. It doesn't fully spell out the underlying ask behavior, but the name, question parameter, and reference to ask_pipeworx make the intent clear.

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 states to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing and notes that results are compared against the stable router. This provides an explicit condition and names the primary alternative, though it doesn't discuss other siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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