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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context beyond these: it explains the beta nature, that routing improvements may be active during testing, and that it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly because no candidate is active. This provides valuable behavioral context without contradicting the annotations.

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 a bit lengthy (5 sentences) but every sentence adds value: beta status, identical scope, current state, usage guidance, and fallback clarification. It is front-loaded with the key differentiator ('Beta version of ask_pipeworx') and maintains a logical flow. Slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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 the tool's complexity (a universal router over 5,801 tools) but simple input schema (one string question), the description fully equips an agent: it explains the beta context, that it is a full working router, how it relates to ask_pipeworx, and how to use it. Since the response shape is stated to be identical to ask_pipeworx, no output schema is needed. Nothing essential 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% — the schema thoroughly documents all six parameters (question and its aliases). The description adds no parameter-level information, which is acceptable since the schema already covers semantics fully. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the burden.

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 a beta version of ask_pipeworx, identical in scope (same tools, arguments, response shape) but with candidate routing improvements. It differentiates from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling by explicitly labeling itself as the experimental edge, so an agent can immediately recognize 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 explicitly instructs when to use this tool: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and clarifies that results are compared against the stable router. It also dispels any fallback misconception by stating 'Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router.' This is direct and unambiguous.

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