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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds valuable context beyond them: that no candidate is active as of 2026-07-26 so behavior currently matches stable, that candidate routing improvements may be enabled live, that this is a full working router rather than a fallback, and that calls feed an A/B comparison against stable. No contradiction with 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 longer than minimal but well packed: beta identity, current status, usage instruction, comparison mechanism, and functional reassurance all earn their place, and the key differentiator ('Beta version of ask_pipeworx') is front-loaded. The specific retirement date (2026-07-26) and the 5,798-tools figure add credibility but are slightly more detail than strictly necessary.

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 single-required-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete: it explains current behavior, equivalence to stable, how to invoke it, and what results are used for. It references 'same response shape' instead of describing the response, which is acceptable given ask_pipeworx exists as a reference point, though an explicit response-format note would fully close the gap.

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 coverage is 100%: the schema fully documents 'question' and all five aliases with a clear natural-language description. The tool description adds only 'same arguments' by reference and no per-parameter detail, so with full schema coverage the baseline 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 states a specific subject and resource: a beta version of ask_pipeworx that is an identical universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape. It explicitly differentiates from siblings by framing itself as the experimental edge with candidate routing improvements, and names the current equivalence to ask_pipeworx, so an agent can distinguish it from ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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 an explicit when-to-use instruction: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing,' and names the stable alternative (ask_pipeworx) with an explanation of how results get compared. It does not provide exclusion criteria or mention when ask_pipeworx_grounded might be preferred, so it stops short of full alternative-routing.

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