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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: candidate routing improvements are enabled live, no candidate is currently active (retired 2026-07-26), and it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It also clarifies that this is a full working router with no fallback, preventing agents from treating it as a stub. This is rich, non-redundant disclosure.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the most critical fact (beta version of ask_pipeworx, identical router). It then explains the current experimental state, usage, and fallback behavior. It is slightly longer than necessary but every sentence adds relevant context about when and how to use the tool.

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 absence of an output schema, the description compensates by stating that the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx, which is essential for an agent to interpret results. It also covers the live experiment status, current parity with the stable router, and the fact that it is a fully functional tool. It does not dive into return formats or edge cases, but enough context is present for correct invocation and basic expectations.

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 six parameters are aliases for the required 'question' field. The description does not add much parameter-specific detail, only noting that the tool accepts the same arguments as ask_pipeworx. Since the schema already documents the aliases thoroughly, a baseline score of 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, a universal router with the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape. It differentiates it from the stable ask_pipeworx by emphasizing the experimental routing improvements, so an agent can tell which variant it is. It does not explicitly contrast it with ask_pipeworx_grounded, but the core function is still clear.

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 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and explains that results are compared against the stable router. This gives a concrete when-to-use condition and references the sibling alternative. It could be stronger by stating when not to use it, but the current guidance is sufficient for basic selection.

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