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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about the experimental nature, current state (no active candidate, matches ask_pipeworx), and the comparison mechanism. It discloses the beta status and potential behavior changes, which is beyond what annotations provide and does not contradict them.

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 concise and well-structured, front-loading the beta status and key functionality. It includes a few explanatory sentences about the experimental routing and current state, all relevant. Slightly verbose in explaining the candidate retirement, but each sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite being a complex universal router, the description is complete: it identifies the stable sibling for reference, explains the current behavior (matches ask_pipeworx), clarifies the fallback situation, and notes the response shape matches ask_pipeworx. With no output schema, it still provides enough for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema has 100% coverage with six parameters, all aliases for 'question'. The description mentions 'same arguments' but does not elaborate on parameter semantics. Since the schema fully documents parameters, the description adds no extra meaning; 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 explicitly states it is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It clearly differentiates from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling and clarifies it is a full working router, not a fallback. This is a specific verb+resource with clear distinction.

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 explicitly instructs to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when wanting the newest routing, and notes that results are compared against the stable router for merge decisions. It also clarifies it does not fall back to anything, implying when to choose it over the stable version. This is explicit when-to-use guidance with an alternative named.

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