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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: that this is a beta/experimental system, that routing improvements may be live during testing, that it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and that it 'falls back to nothing' (i.e., it is a fully functional router, not a stub). This is useful behavioral disclosure for an experimental tool.

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?

Three sentences packed with meaningful information: beta status, equivalence to the stable version, experimental routing behaviour, current state, and usage instruction. It is slightly dense but every sentence earns its place. The candidate-retirement date is a useful concrete detail, though arguably more detail than strictly necessary.

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?

Complete for a router tool whose schema and annotations already carry the core contract. The description explains the beta semantics, the relationship to the sibling ask_pipeworx, the current active state, and that the response shape matches the stable router. No output schema exists, so the response shape is already described by 'same response shape.'

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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds the note that the tool accepts the same arguments as ask_pipeworx and that 'question' can be provided via several aliases, which subtly confirms parameter flexibility. However, with full schema coverage, the description adds little beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 this is the beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router, and explicitly differentiates it from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling by explaining its experimental purpose. The specific verb 'ask' plus the comparison to ask_pipeworx makes the purpose clear, though an agent might still be slightly uncertain about exactly what 'routing' means in practice.

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?

The description tells the agent exactly when to use it ('use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing'), explains that no candidate is currently active so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and implies the alternative is the stable ask_pipeworx. It also notes results are compared against the stable router, providing clear usage context.

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