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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. Beyond that, the description adds important behavioral context: it is a full working router rather than a fallback stub, candidate improvements are enabled live only when under test, and no candidate is currently active. This prevents misconceptions about availability and experimental status while aligning with the annotation's read-only safety profile.

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 front-loaded and information-dense, with each sentence serving a purpose: scope, current state, usage, and fallback clarification. The specific tool count and retirement date add credibility but are slightly verbose; otherwise the structure is strong and under two hundred words.

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?

The description covers what the tool is, its current experimental status, how to use it, and its relationship to the stable ask_pipeworx router. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by stating 'same response shape' as ask_pipeworx, though it does not independently describe the response format or elaborate on what 'routing improvements' mean in practice. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent familiar with the ask_pipeworx family.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the question parameter and all aliases, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description does mention 'same arguments' but gives no additional semantic detail; the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full parameter burden.

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 opens with 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx' and then defines what the tool is: an identical universal router covering the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape, but with experimental routing improvements. This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling by emphasizing the 'experimental edge.'

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also explains how results are evaluated against the stable router, making the selection criterion and relationship to the alternative tool clear. It does not explicitly mention ask_pipeworx_grounded, but the main alternative ask_pipeworx is named with a specific condition.

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