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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by explaining the experimental edge, the current absence of an active candidate, the exact match to ask_pipeworx, and the fact that it is a fully functional router rather than a fallback wrapper.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core identity of the tool. It includes relevant specifics like tool count, argument equality, response shape, and current candidate status without excessive fluff. The 'falls back to nothing' clarification earns its place by preventing a likely misconception.

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 simple one-question router with rich annotations and complete schema coverage, the description is sufficient. It covers current behavior, relationship to the stable sibling, and expected usage. The lack of a definition for the response shape is mitigated by the statement that it matches ask_pipeworx' response shape exactly.

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%, and the schema already documents the aliases (q, text, input, query, prompt) and the primary 'question' parameter. The description only says 'same arguments' without adding new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score 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 this as a beta variant of ask_pipeworx, explicitly stating it is an identical universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable sibling by highlighting experimental routing improvements, leaving no ambiguity about 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 provides explicit guidance: use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is desired, and notes that results are compared against the stable router. It implies the stable alternative is for normal use, but does not explicitly state 'use ask_pipeworx for stable production use,' so it stops just short of perfect exclusion guidance.

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