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

Annotations already provide readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds useful dynamic context: candidate routing improvements may be live, none is currently active, and this is a full working router with no fallback. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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, front-loaded with the core identity and current status, and every clause adds relevant information. The specific details like 5,798 tools and the retirement date are useful, though slightly dense.

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 beta router with no output schema, the description provides the current state, the relationship to the stable router, usage intent, and a response-shape guarantee. It does not explicitly exclude stable or grounded variants, but the beta label and sibling names make the intended selection reasonably complete.

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 every parameter is already documented as an alias for the required 'question' field. The tool description only says 'same arguments' and adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 explicitly identifies this as the beta version of ask_pipeworx with a specific verb and resource, and clarifies it is an identical universal router with candidate routing improvements. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by framing the experimental routing edge, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 gives clear usage context: use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and results are compared against the stable router. It does not explicitly say to prefer ask_pipeworx for stable production use or mention ask_pipeworx_grounded as an alternative, but the beta framing and naming make the intended context clear.

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