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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds the experimental nature: candidate improvements may be live, results are compared against the stable router, and the tool currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. This gives useful dynamic context beyond the static annotations.

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 detailed yet each sentence earns its place: it defines the tool, states the current experimental state, gives usage direction, and clarifies it is fully functional. The structure is front-loaded with the core definition and uses concrete detail like tool count and retirement date to make the beta status precise.

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?

Given the simple single-required-parameter schema and rich annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it is, how to use it, current behavior, how it relates to ask_pipeworx, and that it returns the same response shape. No critical context is missing.

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 all parameters are documented as aliases for question. The description's reference to 'same arguments' links to ask_pipeworx but does not meaningfully add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already 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?

States a specific purpose: an experimental beta variant of ask_pipeworx that routes the same 5,908 tools with identical arguments and response shape. This clearly differentiates it from the stable ask_pipeworx and other siblings.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use exactly like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is desired, and contrasts it with the stable router for comparison. It also explains the current state (no active candidate) and confirms it is a fully working router, removing ambiguity about fallback behavior.

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