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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context about the beta status, the fact that no candidate is currently active, and that results are compared against the stable router. This goes beyond annotations by disclosing the experimental nature and current equivalence, though the description doesn't elaborate on response shape beyond pointing to ask_pipeworx.

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 well-structured, front-loading the core identity and purpose, then explaining current status and usage. However, it contains some redundancy, such as repeating that it 'matches ask_pipeworx exactly' after already stating it's 'identical.' It is informative but could be slightly more concise without losing value.

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 provides sufficient context for an agent to decide whether to use this tool: it explains the beta nature, the current state (matching ask_pipeworx), and how to use it. While there is no output schema, it notes the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx, which is an adequate reference. The description is complete for the tool's purpose.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for all parameters, including the main 'question' parameter and its five aliases, each with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond stating 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, a 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 states that this is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router, and specifies its exact scope (identical to ask_pipeworx with possible routing improvements). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming ask_pipeworx as the stable counterpart and noting the experimental edge. This gives an agent a precise understanding of what the tool does.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool: 'when you want the newest routing.' It also names the alternative (ask_pipeworx) and clarifies that when no candidate is active, it matches ask_pipeworx exactly. This provides clear guidance on selecting this tool over siblings.

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