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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds context by clarifying it is a fully working router (no fallback) and that it runs on the experimental edge, which is useful beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 moderately verbose but informative, explaining the beta nature, the relationship to the stable version, and the experimental edge. It avoids unnecessary fluff and stays focused, though it could be tightened slightly.

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 and the sibling context, the description provides sufficient context: it differentiates from stable ask_pipeworx, explains the live testing nature, and confirms full functionality. Output format is not mentioned, but that is not required for a router tool.

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 all 6 parameters with a description for each, and the 'question' parameter description explicitly lists the aliases. The description explains the aliasing behavior, though it adds little beyond the schema, which is already comprehensive.

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 it is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router, and distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx by highlighting experimental routing improvements. It names the sibling tool explicitly, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when wanting the newest routing and notes results are compared against the stable router. It does not explicitly say 'do not use when stable is required,' but this is strongly implied and the experimental nature is stated.

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