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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context about its experimental nature, the fact that no candidate is currently active, and that results are compared against the stable router — this goes beyond annotations and is critical for safe usage.

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 key point (beta version), and every sentence adds necessary context: identical to stable, current state, usage instruction, and experimental nature. It is 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?

For a universal router with no output schema, the description adequately covers its relationship to the stable version, current operational state, usage instructions, and experimental status. The response shape is said to be identical to ask_pipeworx, which is sufficient context.

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 covers 100% of the parameters, all aliases for 'question'. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is complete, 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 clearly states it is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with identical tool set and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by its experimental routing improvements, making its purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 clarifies it is a full working router with no fallback. It implies the alternative (ask_pipeworx) for stability but does not explicitly state 'when not to use this' — hence a 4 rather than 5.

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