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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds crucial context: it's a beta, currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly (no active candidate), and is a full working router with an experimental edge. This transparency about experimental status and the comparison process goes beyond the annotations without contradicting 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 front-loaded with the core definition ('Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router'), followed by the current state and usage instructions. It is concise enough—three sentences—and each sentence serves a distinct purpose: definition, current state, usage directive. It avoids fluff while packing useful details.

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 single-parameter router with no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the beta nature, the fallback behavior, and that the response shape matches ask_pipeworx. It doesn't specify the exact return format, but since it references the stable tool's shape, an agent could infer it or consult ask_pipeworx's description. The experimental context and usage guidance are adequately covered.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema itself thoroughly documents the 'question' parameter and all aliases. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage. It does not clarify the expected format or length of the question, but the schema already explains it accepts natural language.

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 verb ('ask') and resource ('Pipeworx Beta'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by noting it's a beta with candidate routing improvements. It also clarifies it's an identical universal router with the same 5,801 tools, arguments, and response shape, making its role unmistakable among siblings.

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 wanting the newest routing, and notes results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. It doesn't explicitly list when not to use it (e.g., for production stability), but the experimental framing and comparison mechanism imply that stable behavior is the alternative. It's clear enough for an agent to decide.

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