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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by explaining that it is a full working router, falls back to nothing, and that it is the experimental edge with candidate improvements. It also mentions the retirement of the last candidate on a specific date, which is rich context beyond what annotations provide.

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 sized but front-loaded with the key information: it's a beta version of ask_pipeworx with identical capabilities. The first sentence establishes the core, and the rest adds necessary context about candidate testing and current equivalence. While a bit verbose, each sentence serves a purpose.

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 high schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers the essential context: it's a working router, not a stub, and it's the experimental edge. It explains the current state (no active candidate) and the comparison purpose. While it doesn't describe the response shape in detail, that's consistent with the schema and it's implied to be identical to ask_pipeworx, so the description is complete enough for an agent to use it correctly.

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%, so the schema documents all parameters, including aliases for question. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond that, but it emphasizes that arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, which is useful. Since the schema covers everything, a 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 states it is a beta version of ask_pipeworx with identical functionality, and it distinguishes itself by being the experimental edge with candidate routing improvements. It explicitly mentions it routes to the same 6,350 tools and has the same arguments and response shape, which is specific and differentiates from siblings like 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?

The description explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and that results are compared against the stable router. It also explains that no candidate is active right now, so it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the stable ask_pipeworx.

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