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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the beta status, the current state (no active candidate, retired on 2026-07-26), and that it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. This goes beyond annotations and provides crucial experimental context without contradiction.

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 dense and front-loaded: the key distinction (beta) comes first, then the scope, current state, usage, and fallback status. Every sentence adds value, and the structure uses colons and parentheses effectively to convey complex info without bloat. It is appropriately sized for a tool that has a rich story.

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 the tool's complexity (a router over 5,724 tools) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers everything needed: what it does, how it relates to the stable version, its current experimental status, and that it is a full working router. The response shape is referenced as identical to ask_pipeworx, which is sufficient context. The description is complete for agent selection and invocation.

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% — every parameter (question and its five aliases) is documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond noting the arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, which is already implied. With full schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate.

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 states this is the beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same 5,724 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable sibling by being the experimental edge, which is exactly the kind of specific resource + scope needed. The purpose is unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and results are compared against the stable router. It also clarifies it is not a fallback ('Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router'). This gives the agent a clear selection criterion versus the stable sibling and conditions for use.

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