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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial context: it is a live experimental router, candidates are tested and retired, currently no candidate is active, and it is a full working router rather than a fallback or stub. This goes well beyond 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 front-loaded with the core definition, then current state, then usage guidance. It is slightly verbose with operational detail such as the retirement date, but every major sentence earns its place by answering a likely agent question.

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 router with no output schema, the description provides enough context: identical behavior to ask_pipeworx, same arguments, current experimental status, and usage guidance. It does not spell out the response shape concretely, but references the stable sibling which is probably sufficient for an agent that knows ask_pipeworx.

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%: all six parameters are well-documented aliases for 'question'. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already carries the full burden. Baseline 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 states a specific purpose: it is the beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It clearly distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling by its experimental routing edge.

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 says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when wanting the newest routing, and notes that results are compared against the stable router for merge decisions. It also clarifies current status (no candidate active, so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly), giving the agent a clear condition-based choice.

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