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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint true and destructiveHint false, covering side effects. The description adds context about its experimental nature, current state (no active candidates), and that it is a full working router. It reveals potential behavioral variance when candidates are active, but does not detail failure modes or response behavior, which is a minor gap beyond the annotation coverage.

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, with each sentence contributing distinct value: identity, current state, usage, and clarification of full functionality. The 'falls back to nothing' sentence could be trimmed without loss, but overall it is front-loaded with the beta identity and not padded.

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 simple tool with one question parameter and robust safety annotations, the description provides adequate context: what it is, its relationship to ask_pipeworx, experimental status, and usage. It does not explain output shape, but since no output schema is provided and the tool is a router, this is acceptable. The only minor gap is not detailing how behavior changes when a candidate is active.

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 all six parameters (question and its five aliases) are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific guidance, but the schema already explains everything, meeting the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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, an identical universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It explicitly names the sibling ask_pipeworx and distinguishes its beta status, giving the agent a precise understanding of what it does and how it differs.

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 states 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and mentions that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. This provides a clear when-to-use condition and names the alternative (ask_pipeworx). It does not explicitly say when not to use it, but implies that stable is the fallback for guaranteed behavior, which is acceptable.

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