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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context: this is a full working router (falls back to nothing), and candidate routing improvements may be active or not, and when active behavior might differ from stable. However, it doesn't detail what the response shape is or how routing candidates might alter behavior beyond saying they are enabled. It is honest about the experimental nature, which is good, but lacks specifics.

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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the key fact (beta version, same router) and explains current status, usage, and fallback behavior. It earns its length by covering several important points, though it could be tightened slightly. It is structured but not perfectly scannable.

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 simplicity of the tool (one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description provides enough context to invoke it properly: it explains the beta nature, current parity with stable, and what to expect. It also mentions there's no fallback, which is important for an experimental tool. Missing a bit of detail about what the response shape is, but the schema and 'same response shape' reference mitigate that.

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%, with all parameters documented as aliases for question. The description adds that the router accepts the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, but doesn't need to explain the parameters in depth because the schema already does. The baseline 3 is appropriate since the description adds only marginal context 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 identifies this as the beta experimental version of ask_pipeworx, explicitly naming it a universal router with the same tools/arguments/response shape as the stable version. It distinguishes it from ask_pipeworx by its role as the experimental edge with candidate routing improvements, and notes that with no candidate active it currently behaves identically.

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 guidance: "Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing." It also contrasts with the stable sibling ask_pipeworx, explaining that results are compared against the stable router to decide what merges. This is clear when-to-use guidance with an alternative named.

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