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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context: it is a full working router (not a fallback), has candidate routing improvements enabled live when under test, and notes the current no-candidate state. This goes 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 dense but front-loaded with the core identity ('Beta version of ask_pipeworx'), then clarifies current state, usage, and nature in efficient sentences. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no filler or repetition.

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 as a universal router, the description adequately covers its relationship to the stable router, current state, and usage intent. It references the same response shape as ask_pipeworx, which suffices for agents familiar with that tool. No critical calling information is missing.

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%, so the schema fully documents all six parameters including aliases. The description adds no extra semantic detail about parameters—it merely says 'same arguments as ask_pipeworx,' which is redundant. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Clearly identifies itself as a beta version of ask_pipeworx with identical functionality, naming the sibling tool it mirrors and distinguishing itself as the experimental edge. The verb 'ask' and resource 'pipeworx' are explicit, and the description specifies the same 5,801 tools and arguments, making the tool's 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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also contrasts with the stable router and explains that results are compared to decide merges, giving clear usage context and implicit exclusions for the stable variant.

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