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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: candidate routing improvements are enabled live during tests, no candidate is currently active, the tool falls back to nothing, and it is a full working router rather than a wrapper. This clearly sets expectations for an experimental edge.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the beta relationship, lists concrete equivalences, explains the current candidate state, and gives a direct usage instruction. The specific number of tools and the retirement date add useful context without excessive length.

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 simple single-required-parameter tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, how it behaves experimentally, when to use it, and what it falls back to. The referenced 'same response shape' assumes knowledge of ask_pipeworx, but that is acceptable given the sibling context and explicit naming.

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 schema already documents the 'question' parameter plus five aliases. The description adds that the tool takes 'the same arguments' as ask_pipeworx and produces the same response shape, but it does not add per-parameter meaning beyond the schema. A baseline of 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 identifies this as a beta version of ask_pipeworx: an identical universal router with the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes the tool from its stable sibling and from ask_pipeworx_grounded by explaining its experimental role and current behavioral equivalence.

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 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and notes the current state where no candidate is active so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It does not explicitly discuss when to prefer ask_pipeworx_grounded, but the use condition versus the stable router is clear.

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