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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=true. The description adds meaningful context: candidate routing improvements may be enabled live, no candidate is active as of 2026-07-26, and it falls back to nothing—it's a full router, not a stub. This clarifies its experimental nature and current parity with the stable version.

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 moderately sized and well-organized, leading with the beta designation, then current state, usage instruction, and a clarifying note. Every sentence contributes, though the final clarification could be tightened.

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 beta variant of a complex router with no output schema, the description covers what the tool is, when to use it, its current parity with the stable version, and its experimental nature. It appropriately references ask_pipeworx for details rather than duplicating them.

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%, with all six parameters documented as aliases for the required 'question' field. The description only notes 'same arguments' without adding parameter-level detail, so it relies on the schema, meriting the baseline 3.

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 the beta variant of ask_pipeworx, describing it as an identical universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. This distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling and conveys its experimental routing 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?

Explicitly instructs to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when wanting the newest routing, and notes results are compared against the stable router. This gives clear selection criteria and names the alternative, though it doesn't state an explicit exclusion for production use.

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