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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it is a full working router with no fallback, candidate improvements change live behavior, and the current state matches the stable version. This gives the agent an accurate picture of volatility and safety.

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 somewhat long but every sentence carries meaningful information about beta status, current routing state, usage instructions, and fallback behavior. It is front-loaded with the core identity of the tool and avoids filler, though a slightly tighter rewrite could remove 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?

For a universal routing tool with no output schema, the description covers invocation semantics, relationship to the stable sibling, current experimental state, and response shape via reference to ask_pipeworx. It does not describe the actual response format in detail, but that is adequately delegated to the sibling tool and the routing nature of the tool.

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%, with all six parameters documented as aliases for the required question field. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond saying the tool accepts the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, so the schema carries the burden effectively. 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 identifies the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx and a universal router that handles natural-language questions by routing to 5,798 tools. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling by explicitly stating it is the experimental edge, though it does not mention ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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 clarifies that it currently matches ask_pipeworx because no candidate is active. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the beta/experimental framing strongly implies prefer the stable sibling for reliability.

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