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

The annotations already declare the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: it is a beta with candidate routing improvements that may be enabled, and it currently behaves identically to ask_pipeworx. This explains the experimental nature and the potential for behavior changes, which is not evident from annotations alone. However, it does not mention rate limits or auth, but those are often not critical for a read-only hint.

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 four sentences long and includes details like the retirement date and the 'falls back to nothing' phrase, which are somewhat redundant. The key information (beta, identical to ask_pipeworx, current state) is front-loaded, but the description could be trimmed by removing the trailing explanation. It is adequately structured but loses points for verbosity.

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 tool is a complex universal router with 6 parameters (mostly aliases) and no output schema. The description adequately covers its experimental status, current equivalence to ask_pipeworx, and usage instructions. It references the sibling tool for behavior details, which is reasonable since ask_pipeworx is available. The description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly without requiring additional context beyond the schema and sibling definitions.

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 has 100% coverage, describing the required 'question' parameter and all five aliases as equivalents. The description says 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx but adds no further semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, a score of 3 is appropriate: the description does not need to repeat schema details, and it does not add extra value here.

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 that this is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same set of tools, arguments, and response shape. It explicitly names the sibling tool ask_pipeworx and distinguishes itself as the experimental edge, making its purpose unambiguous. The verb 'ask' and resource 'pipeworx' are specific, and it differentiates from the stable sibling by its beta status.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also explains that results are compared against the stable router to decide what merges, and notes that currently no candidate is active so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly. This provides clear alternatives and conditions for selection, meeting the highest standard for usage guidance.

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