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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context the annotations cannot convey: routing may change live while a candidate is under test, the current state has no active candidate (retired 2026-07-26), and 'Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router' prevents the agent from mistreating the beta as a degraded stub.

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?

Four dense sentences, each earning its place: identity and parity, current experimental status, usage instruction, and the stub-vs-full-router clarification. The key facts are front-loaded, though the retirement date and exact tool count 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?

Given a single required string parameter, read-only/idempotent annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: parity with ask_pipeworx, the live-vs-static behavioral caveat, and usage direction. The only minor gap is not describing the concrete response format, but 'same response shape' reasonably delegates that to the stable sibling.

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 already documents the required 'question' parameter plus five string aliases (q, text, input, query, prompt). The description only confirms 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which asserts parity but adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the baseline the schema already provides.

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 function — a universal router that answers questions across the same 5,798 tools with the same arguments and response shape as ask_pipeworx. It explicitly identifies itself as the 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx', which distinguishes it from the stable sibling and from 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?

It gives an explicit selection condition: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing', naming the alternative and the context that justifies the choice. It does not spell out when-not-to-use cases (e.g., preferring the stable router for production safety), but the comparison framing and the clarification that it is a full working router make the intended usage clear.

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