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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent behavior, so the bar for description-based disclosure is lower. The description adds valuable live-behavior context: candidate routing improvements are testal live, no candidate is currently active, and behavior currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It also clarifies the no-fallback status: 'Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router, just the 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 dense and well-organized, front-loading the beta identity, then live status, then usage direction. It includes useful specifics like the retirement date and the same 5,798 tools. It is longer than the minimum but every sentence earns its place by providing actionable context.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description only mentions 'same response shape' without explaining what that shape is. It relies on the agent knowing ask_pipeworx's argument and response contracts, which is acceptable in context but leaves the tool incomplete as a standalone description.

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 baseline is 3, but the q/text/input descriptions only say 'Alias for question' while the required parameter 'question' is not defined in properties. The description says 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, but it does not resolve the ambiguity or add real semantic meaning beyond 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 opens with 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router (same 5,798 tools, same arguments, same response shape)', clearly stating what the tool is and what it does. It also names and distinguishes the sibling ask_pipeworx, so an agent can tell the beta apart from the stable router immediately.

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 instructs: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and explains that results are compared against the stable router to decide what merges. This gives both a when-to-use condition and a clear alternative, which is strong guidance.

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