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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds context about the experimental nature, live candidate routing, and the fact that it's currently identical to ask_pipeworx, which is valuable beyond the 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 concise, front-loading the beta status and key facts. It is structured into clear sentences that convey the relationship to ask_pipeworx, current state, and usage, without unnecessary fluff.

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 router with a single required parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what it is, how it differs from the stable version, and when to use it. It doesn't detail the routing mechanics but that's implied and not necessary for invocation.

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 input schema fully documents the 'question' parameter and its aliases. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so baseline of 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 identifies the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with 5,798 tools. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming ask_pipeworx and positioning itself as the experimental edge, making its 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?

It provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and notes that results are compared to decide merges. It also clarifies the current state (no candidate active, so identical to ask_pipeworx) and that it falls back to nothing, reinforcing when to use it.

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