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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: it is a live experimental router, may have candidate routing improvements under test, currently has no active candidate, and explicitly warns that it falls back to nothing while still being a fully functional router. This is a strong disclosure of operational behavior.

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 identity information and each sentence adds value: beta nature, current candidate state, usage guidance, and clarification that it is a full router. It is slightly verbose with details like the exact tool count and retirement date, but these support situational clarity rather than being filler.

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 compensates by stating the response shape matches ask_pipeworx and that it is a complete working router, not a fallback stub. It also covers the current operational state of the beta candidates. It could be more complete with an explicit note about when the stable ask_pipeworx should be preferred, but the agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already fully documents the question parameter and all five aliases. The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond saying it uses the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, which is helpful for compatibility but not additional semantic detail. This matches the baseline for high 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 this as the beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same 5,798 tools and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by its experimental routing improvements and explicitly states when no candidate is active it behaves identically. This gives an agent a precise understanding of what the tool is and how it differs from its sibling.

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 to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when wanting the newest routing, and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It gives a clear usage context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention ask_pipeworx_grounded as an alternative, leaving the exclusion guidance slightly implicit.

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