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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, so the description's job is to add context, and it does: the beta status, the fact that routing candidates can be enabled live, the current absence of a candidate, and that it is a full working router rather than a degraded fallback. This gives an agent an accurate model of the experimental risk without contradicting the 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 average but each sentence earns its place: beta definition, current status, usage instruction, and assurance that it is fully functional. The front-loaded 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx' makes the key distinction immediately visible, though '5,798 tools' and the exact retirement date are 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 simple one-argument tool with rich annotations, the description is complete enough to invoke safely: it accepts a question, behaves identically to ask_pipeworx today, and may differ when a candidate is under test. It does not spell out the response format, but it explicitly says the response shape is the same as ask_pipeworx, which is sufficient given the sibling exists.

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% and every parameter is documented as an alias for 'question', so the schema already carries the meaning. The description only says 'same arguments' and does not add format, length, or example guidance, so a 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 identifies this as the beta variant of ask_pipeworx and states it is an identical universal router over 5,798 tools, which makes the resource and action clear. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling by emphasizing experimental routing candidates. It relies somewhat on ask_pipeworx for the full meaning of 'ask'/'router', so it is clear but not maximally standalone.

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?

'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' gives a direct when-to-use condition and names the alternative. It also clarifies current state ('matches ask_pipeworx exactly') so an agent knows the behavior is unchanged today, though it does not give explicit when-not-to-use guidance for the stable sibling.

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