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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which covers safety. The description adds valuable context about the experimental nature—that routing candidates may be active and change behavior—and clarifies that it currently behaves exactly like ask_pipeworx. This extends beyond 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 concise yet informative, structured with a clear opening statement and a closing clarification. It avoids unnecessary detail, but includes a bit more text than strictly essential, which is still well-organized and easy to parse.

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?

While there is no output schema, the description explicitly mentions the same response shape as ask_pipeworx, giving agents a reference point. It covers the essential details for invoking the tool, including the current state (no active candidate) and the experimental nature. A return format description would make it complete, but referencing the stable tool mitigates this gap.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, documenting 'question' and all five aliases (q, text, input, query, prompt) with clear descriptions. The description reiterates that it accepts the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, providing further context. Since the schema is fully descriptive and the description reinforces it, a score of 4 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 clearly identifies the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx, explicitly stating it is an identical universal router with the same 5,912 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable version by noting experimental routing improvements, which sets it apart from siblings effectively.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also explains the context (experimental edge, compared against stable) and clarifies that it is not a fallback but a full working router. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like ask_pipeworx_grounded or when not to use it, which would be more complete.

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