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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly since no candidate is active, and that it is a full working router, not a fallback. This adds context about the experimental nature and current behavior, which goes beyond annotations.

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 long but each sentence adds distinct value: stating it's a beta, confirming identical behavior, explaining the comparison purpose, and clarifying it's a full router. The most critical info (beta, identical, use like ask_pipeworx) is front-loaded, though some redundancy exists with the parenthetical.

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 simplicity (single question parameter, read-only, no output schema) and the extensive parameter schema, the description is complete. It explains the experimental status, current behavior, and usage. The only minor gap is not specifying what happens when a candidate is active (e.g., how results differ), but that's covered by the comparison mention.

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% (all parameters are documented as aliases), so the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description doesn't add much about parameters beyond confirming they are identical to ask_pipeworx, which is useful but not essential given the complete schema.

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 with identical routing, and clarifies its experimental nature. It distinguishes itself from the stable router by emphasizing it is the experimental edge, though it doesn't explicitly compare to all siblings, only ask_pipeworx.

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 you want the newest routing, and mentions comparison results against the stable router to decide merges. It doesn't state when NOT to use it, but the experimental framing implies it's for testing new routing, which is clear enough.

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