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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the experimental nature, the absence of a fallback, and the current state with no active candidate. It also states that this is a full working router, avoiding any inference that beta implies degraded functionality.

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 longer than a typical one-liner but each sentence contributes: current parity, usage guidance, experimental status, and no-fallback guarantee. A slight redundancy exists around 'matches ask_pipeworx exactly' and 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx,' but the structure is front-loaded and readable.

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 no output schema, the description handles return shape by deferring to ask_pipeworx's response shape. It covers the dynamic state, how to invoke it, and what distinguishes it from the stable router, making the tool fully actionable without external lookup.

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 already provides complete meaning for all six parameters, including the alias relationships. The description's 'same arguments' cross-reference adds context but no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific resource and action: a beta version of ask_pipeworx with the same routing surface but experimental routing improvements. It differentiates from the stable sibling by explaining that it is the experimental edge, and it names ask_pipeworx directly as the stable counterpart.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, with results compared against the stable router. It also notes current parity, so the agent knows it can behave identically when no candidate is active.

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