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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds valuable context: it's an experimental edge, currently has no active candidate, and matches ask_pipeworx exactly right now. It also clarifies it is a full working router with 'falls back to nothing', which goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 lengthy but well front-loaded with the core identity ('Beta version of ask_pipeworx') and then provides critical state details. Each sentence adds useful information—current no-candidate status, usage guidance, and comparison purpose. There is minor redundancy (e.g., 'experimental edge' repeated conceptually) but overall it is structured logically.

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 six parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool is, its current state, how to use it, and what to expect in terms of response shape ('same response shape' as ask_pipeworx). An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly alongside its sibling tools.

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 parameters described, including aliases like q, text, input, and question. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, instead deferring to ask_pipeworx's behavior. This meets the baseline expectation when the schema handles the documentation burden.

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 the 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx' and an 'identical universal router' with the same scope and behavior, immediately distinguishing it from siblings. It specifies the resource (the routing tool) and the verb (ask). This is highly specific and 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?

The description explicitly instructs to 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing', providing a clear condition for use. It also notes that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges, giving context on when this experimental variant is relevant. Though it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it, the guidance is strong and practical.

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