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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses valuable behavioral context: candidate routing improvements are enabled live when under test, no candidate is currently active, it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, results are compared to the stable router, and it falls back to nothing as a full working router. This is exemplary transparency about experimental and mutable behavior.

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 slightly longer than average but every sentence earns its place: purpose/status, current behavior, usage guidance, and fallback explanation. It front-loades the core identity and keeps the experimental nuance clear without unnecessary filler.

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 complex beta router with no output schema, the description covers purpose, current parity, usage, experimental nature, and fallback behavior. It relies on ask_pipeworx for output shape details and doesn't distinguish from ask_pipeworx_grounded, but the core information an agent needs to invoke and interpret the tool is present.

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 all six parameters are aliases for the same question concept, so the input schema already documents parameter semantics thoroughly. The description adds only 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which is useful but does not go beyond what the schema provides.

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 and specifies it is an identical universal router with the same 5,743 tools, same arguments, and same response shape. It differentiates itself from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling by its experimental routing improvements, so an agent knows exactly what the tool is and how it differs.

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 references the stable router as the comparison baseline. This gives clear when-to-use context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly name ask_pipeworx_grounded as an alternative.

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