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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds transparency about its beta nature, the absence of a fallback ('falls back to nothing'), and the fact that results are compared to decide merges. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 repetitive, repeating 'identical', 'same', 'matches exactly', and 'use exactly like' within three sentences. It could be tightened without losing information. The key points are present but the redundancy hurts flow.

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 covers the tool's current state, usage scenario, and relationship to the stable version. It does not explain output format or return values, but given the absence of an output schema and the straightforward router nature, this is not a significant gap. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide 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 fully documents all six parameters as aliases for 'question', with 100% coverage. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides—it only repeats the alias list. Since schema coverage is complete, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 it as a universal router that behaves identically to ask_pipeworx, and explicitly states it is the beta variant for testing candidate routing improvements. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by its 'newest routing' purpose, though it does lean on the sibling's identity rather than fully defining its own purpose.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also clarifies current state (no active candidate, matches ask_pipeworx) and notes the comparison against the stable router, leaving no ambiguity about when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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