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

Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: no candidate is currently active so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly, it is a full working router, and it does not fall back to anything.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then explains current parity with the stable router and gives usage guidance. Each sentence adds value, though the middle sentence about the retired candidate is slightly specific.

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 that this is a beta variant of an existing tool, the description covers the current experimental state, parity with ask_pipeworx, usage intent, and response shape. There is no output schema, but referencing the sibling's response shape is sufficient because the tool is explicitly identical.

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%, with all six parameters documented as aliases for the required 'question' field. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but the schema already provides complete semantic coverage, so no compensation is needed.

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 variant of ask_pipeworx: an identical universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape, but with experimental routing improvements. It differentiates itself from the stable sibling ask_pipeworx and explains its current status.

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 tells the agent to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is desired, and notes that results are compared against the stable router. It does not explicitly say 'use the stable version when you need stability,' but the beta/experimental framing implies that alternative.

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