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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a behavioral nuance by stating that candidate routing improvements may be enabled 'whenever one is under test,' implying possible variability in responses. It also reassures that it is a 'full working router,' which clarifies it does not degrade to nothing. No contradictions with 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 repetitive, with 'identical', 'same', and 'exactly' used multiple times. It could be condensed to a few sentences without losing meaning. The structure is a single run-on paragraph, lacking clear sections or bullet points, making it less scannable for an agent.

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 adequately situates the tool as a beta variant of ask_pipeworx, referencing the stable sibling and indicating that the response shape matches. It does not describe the output format explicitly, but the mention of 'same response shape' implies it inherits from ask_pipeworx. Given the rich sibling context, this is sufficient for an agent to understand its purpose, though it could be more explicit about when to use 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 provides complete coverage of the single required parameter ('question') and its aliases (q, text, input, query, prompt). The tool description itself does not add any parameter-specific information, but since the schema is self-explanatory, the baseline score of 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 a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a 'universal router' for natural language questions. It distinguishes it from the stable version by mentioning candidate routing improvements. However, it does not elaborate on what 'routing' entails beyond the parameter description, so it is somewhat vague about the core function.

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 provides some guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and notes that results are compared against the stable router. It also clarifies that when no candidate is active, it matches ask_pipeworx exactly. This is useful but does not clearly state when to prefer this over ask_pipeworx or other siblings, leaving the decision somewhat implicit.

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