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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is a live experimental router with candidate improvements, results are compared against the stable router, and it is fully functional. 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 front-loaded with the beta designation and core identity, but it includes extraneous details like the exact retirement date of the last candidate (2026-07-26) which adds noise. It is a bit long for what it conveys, but the key facts are presented first.

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?

Given the tool's complexity as a universal router with 5,724 tools, the description conveys it is fully functional and identical to ask_pipeworx, with the same response shape. It does not provide an explicit example, but the reference to the stable tool and the absence of an output schema are adequately handled by stating it matches ask_pipeworx exactly. The experimental nature and comparison behavior are clearly communicated.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds no parameter-specific details beyond saying it shares the same arguments as ask_pipeworx. The schema already documents all six parameters and their aliases, so the description provides no additional value for parameter understanding.

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 states it is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with identical capabilities, and clarifies its role as the experimental edge. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx and names the sibling, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides clear guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' This implies the stable version is the alternative, but it doesn't explicitly say when to prefer the stable one or mention ask_pipeworx_grounded. The experimental nature is stated, giving sufficient context for choosing between this and the stable sibling.

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