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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context: candidate routing may be active, none is active now, it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and there is no fallback because it is a fully working router. This transparency 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 front-loaded with the most important facts: it is a beta, identical router with experimental routing. The parenthetical retirement date is slightly extra, but every sentence otherwise contributes to clarifying current behavior and usage. It is dense without being bloated.

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 no output schema, the description helps by stating the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx and clarifying there is no fallback. It also explains current behavioral state (no active candidate), which is useful for routing decisions. It does not fully describe the response shape itself, but for invoking the tool with a question, the provided guidance is sufficient.

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%, so the baseline is 3 and the description does not need to restate parameter details. It only says the tool has the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, which adds no field-level meaning beyond the schema, but this is not a deficiency given the full schema coverage.

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 and defines it as an identical universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx by describing experimental routing improvements, so an agent can tell what this variant is and how it relates to 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?

The description explicitly advises using it exactly like ask_pipeworx when the agent wants the newest routing, and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name the stable alternative as a direct exclusion, but the context is clear.

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