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

Annotations are rich (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context beyond those hints: the current state (no active candidate, last retired 2026-07-26), that behavior currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, that it is a full working router with no fallback, and that it is an experimental edge. No contradiction with 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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the description is verbose — a dense paragraph with background detail (specific dates, 'the last was retired on outcome evidence 2026-07-26', 'falls back to nothing', 'the experimental edge') that could be trimmed. Some redundancy ('identical universal router', 'same 5,743 tools, same arguments, same response shape'). Informative but not economical.

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 an experimental router with a single free-text parameter and no output schema, the description covers what matters: the tool count, argument equivalence, response-shape equivalence to ask_pipeworx, current identity with the stable version, and how results are evaluated. It references the sibling for response shape rather than describing it, which is adequate given no output schema exists on either.

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% and the schema fully documents all six parameters, including that q/text/input/query/prompt are aliases for question. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, which is fine — the schema carries the entire burden and does so completely, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific role — a beta 'universal router' that mirrors ask_pipeworx — and explicitly differentiates it from its stable sibling and from ask_pipeworx_grounded. It names the verb/resource scope, identifies the exact number of tools and that the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool is.

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?

States the trigger condition clearly ('Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing') and explains the experimental purpose — results compared against the stable router to decide what merges. It names the alternative (ask_pipeworx, the stable router) but does not explicitly say when NOT to use it versus the stable version (e.g., reliability/behavioral stability), which would push it higher.

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