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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to repeat those. It goes beyond annotations by disclosing the beta nature, current matching to ask_pipeworx, the possibility of live candidate routing changes, and the purpose of result comparison. This gives the agent full awareness of experimental behavior without contradicting any structured metadata.

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 a bit longer than strictly necessary, but every sentence earns its place: the first defines the relationship to ask_pipeworx, the second states current state, the third gives usage guidance, and the fourth prevents a common misinterpretation. Information is front-loaded with the core purpose, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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 conveys the tool's scope by referencing '5,718 tools' and the identical response shape to ask_pipeworx. It explains experimental status and fallback behavior. One minor gap is that it does not describe what kinds of questions are appropriate, but the 'universal router' phrasing and reference to ask_pipeworx imply broad coverage, which is sufficient given the sibling 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%—all six parameters (question and five aliases) are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific info; mentioning 'same arguments' is redundant since the schema already defines them. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description does not compensate beyond that.

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 verb ('ask') and resource (Pipeworx), and explicitly identifies itself as the beta variant of ask_pipeworx. It clearly differentiates from siblings by naming ask_pipeworx and describing the 'experimental edge', so an agent understands exactly what this tool is without opening any schema.

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?

Directly instructs the agent: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' This explicitly states the condition for use (wanting newest routing) and implies the alternative (stable ask_pipeworx) for other cases. It also clarifies that this is a full working router, not a stub, eliminating ambiguity.

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