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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent hints, but the description adds important behavioral context: candidate routing improvements are live only when under test, none is active currently, the tool is a full working router, and there is no fallback. This goes well beyond the annotations and clarifies the experimental nature.

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 detailed but organized, front-loading the core beta identity and then adding current status, usage, and fallback behavior. It is slightly wordy in places, such as the date of the last retirement, but each sentence contributes to a complete understanding.

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 tool with one required parameter, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it explains current behavior, exact parity with ask_pipeworx, the experimental comparison purpose, and explicitly states there is no fallback. An agent has enough to determine when and how to invoke it.

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 covers all six parameters with 100% coverage, documenting each as an alias for question. The description adds little beyond saying 'same arguments' and identifying the tool as a router; it does not enrich parameter semantics further. 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 clearly identifies this as the beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with identical arguments and response shape, and explicitly distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx. It states the tool's scope and current exact behavior, leaving no ambiguity about what it does or which sibling it relates to.

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 gives explicit usage context: use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and mentions comparison against the stable router. It clearly points to the alternative (ask_pipeworx) but does not explicitly state when NOT to use this beta version, such as for production-critical tasks, so it falls short of a 5.

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