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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it's a full working router (not a fallback stub), no candidate is currently active so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and the experimental nature (routing differences come and go as candidates are tested). This transparency about current state is genuinely useful beyond 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?

The description is somewhat long but information-dense and well-structured. It front-loads the beta identity, states the relationship to the sibling, and ends with a behavioral clarification that prevents misclassification. The 'No candidate is active right now' detail is important context that justifies the length.

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?

The description is complete for an agent trying to decide whether to use this tool. It explains the experimental status, the fallback behavior (none — it's a full router), and how it relates to the stable ask_pipeworx. Without an output schema, the description could ideally explain the response shape more, but it does mention 'same response shape' as the stable tool, which is sufficient given the sibling relationship.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters (question plus five aliases). The description mentions 'same arguments' but doesn't add detail about how the question should be phrased. The schema does say natural language is accepted, so baseline 3 is appropriate — the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 this as a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes it from the stable sibling by noting it's the experimental edge with candidate routing improvements. However, it doesn't explicitly state the core function of what ask_pipeworx does (answer questions by routing to 5,743 tools), relying on the sibling context.

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 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It clarifies both when to use it (want newest routing) and implies when not to (need stable/proven behavior). This is strong usage guidance.

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