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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so less safety disclosure is needed. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: experimental candidate routing may be under test, results are compared for merge decisions, there is no fallback, and it is a full working router. This goes beyond annotation data without contradicting it.

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 four sentences and mostly efficient, front-loading the core purpose as a beta version of ask_pipeworx. The date and retired-candidate detail are slightly specific but relevant to current behavior, and the final sentence reinforces that it is a real working router, which is useful though slightly emphatic.

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 read-only question-routing tool with one required string parameter, the definition is complete: it specifies equivalence to ask_pipeworx, same response shape, experimental status, and no fallback. It does not define the response shape inline, but explicitly states it matches the stable sibling, which is sufficient context.

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 documents the required question parameter plus aliases, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. The phrase 'same arguments' adds only cross-reference value and no new semantic information about how to phrase the question.

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 the beta version of ask_pipeworx, states it is an identical universal router with the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape, and distinguishes it from the stable sibling by the experimental routing improvements. This is specific and actionable, not a tautology.

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 says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is wanted, and explains that results are compared with the stable router to decide what merges. It also notes that no candidate is currently active, so behavior currently matches ask_pipeworx, giving an agent a clear selection rule.

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