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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds context about the beta nature, that no candidate is active currently, and that it matches ask_pipeworx exactly. This goes beyond annotations by explaining the experimental edge and the comparison process, though it doesn't detail routing behavior further. No contradiction with 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 informative and well-structured, with the key facts front-loaded. It has three sentences, each adding value: the beta definition, the current state, and usage guidance. Slightly verbose but not wasteful; a 4 is appropriate for its efficiency.

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 and one required parameter (with aliases covered by the schema), the description covers everything needed: it explains what the tool is, how it differs from the sibling, when to use it, and its current behavior. 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 coverage is 100% – all six parameters are aliases for 'question' and are fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-specific information, mentioning only that it has the same arguments as ask_pipeworx. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, this is a 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 explicitly states it's a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It clearly identifies the resource (pipeworx) and the verb (ask), and distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx by noting experimental routing improvements. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also clarifies that it's a full working router and contrasts it with the stable version, saying results are compared to decide merges. This tells the agent exactly when to choose this tool over ask_pipeworx.

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