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

The description discloses its experimental nature, that it may have candidate improvements, and that it currently behaves identically to the stable version. It also clarifies it is a full working router, not a stub. This goes beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent etc.) by explaining the beta context.

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 informative and well-structured, covering purpose, usage, and behavior in a few sentences without excessive verbosity. It earns a high score for clarity and efficiency.

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?

Given that annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the description covers beta status, usage conditions, and relationship to stable version, the tool is adequately contextualized. No critical information is missing.

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 fully documents all parameters (question with multiple aliases) with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so 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 states it is the beta version of ask_pipeworx, identical in function but with candidate routing improvements. This distinguishes it from the sibling stable tool and explicitly conveys its role.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use it ('when you want the newest routing'), how it compares to the stable alternative (results compared to decide merges), and notes that currently it matches ask_pipeworx exactly. This leaves no ambiguity about selection.

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