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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the experimental edge, the comparison against stable router, fallback behavior ('Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router'), and the retired candidate date, which is more than 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 compact yet informative, front-loading the key identity ('Beta version of ask_pipeworx') and the key usage instruction. A little wordy near the end ('the last was retired on outcome evidence 2026-07-26'), but that detail is relevant for transparency.

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 tool's low complexity (one meaningful param, no output schema needed, simple alias semantics), the description covers identity, current behavior, usage, and fallback. It lacks a mention of any rate limits or response format specifics, but for a read-only router that mirrors a sibling, this is nearly complete.

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 description doesn't need to explain parameters deeply; the schema handles that. The description mentions 'same arguments' and tells agents to use it like ask_pipeworx, providing adequate routing-level guidance beyond the schema.

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 variant of ask_pipeworx, identical in tools/arguments/response shape, with candidate routing improvements. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling and explicitly tells how to use it.

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?

Explicitly says to use exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It also clarifies no candidate is active right now, so behavior currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly.

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