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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds valuable context about being experimental, currently matching stable, and that results feed into comparisons for merges. No contradiction with annotations; it enriches understanding without repeating safety info.

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: it states the core purpose, relationship to stable, current state, and usage guidance in a few sentences. Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 sufficiently explains the tool's role as a beta router and references ask_pipeworx for exact usage, implying the agent knows how to use the stable version. It lacks explicit examples or output shape details, but since it says 'same response shape' as ask_pipeworx and no output schema is present, the information is adequate given the sibling context.

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 coverage is 100% — all aliases for 'question' are described in the schema. The description does not add any new parameter detail beyond restating that arguments are the same as ask_pipeworx. Since the schema fully documents parameters, a baseline 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 the tool is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with 5,724 tools, and explicitly distinguishes it from the stable version by mentioning candidate routing improvements. It even specifies the current state (no active candidate, so identical to stable). This makes the purpose unambiguous and differentiates it from siblings.

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 says 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and notes results are compared to decide merges. It also clarifies that it is a full working router, not a fallback. This provides clear when-to-use guidance relative to the stable sibling.

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