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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: live candidate routing improvements may alter behavior, currently identical to stable, and results are compared for merge decisions. It also states 'Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router,' which prevents an agent from treating it as a stub. Minor gap: no details on failure modes or how results are compared.

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 key fact (beta version, identical router) and provides necessary caveats in a compact paragraph. It earns its length by covering current status, usage, comparison purpose, and fallback behavior. Slightly verbose in parenthetical asides, but each sentence adds unique information.

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?

For a universal router with a single required question parameter and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: current behavior, how to use it, and why it exists. It lacks a concrete example of the question input and does not explain what 'response shape' means beyond a passing reference, but given the stable sibling exists, an agent can infer full details from ask_pipeworx.

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 coverage is 100%, with 'question' fully documented and five aliases listed. The description adds one meaningful semantic detail: arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, reinforcing that any alias can be used. Since the schema already covers all parameter meanings, the description's confirmation of identical arguments is a helpful addition.

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 this as a beta variant of ask_pipeworx, a universal router, and states that it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It distinguishes itself as the experimental edge while noting no candidate is currently active. However, it does not describe what ask_pipeworx itself does (e.g., routing questions to tools), relying on the sibling name and context.

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 says 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and explains the comparison purpose. It also clarifies that it is a full working router, not a fallback. This gives an agent clear when-to-use guidance and differentiates it from the stable sibling.

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