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

The description goes beyond the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations by disclosing that candidate routing improvements are enabled live, that no candidate is currently active, that it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and that it is a full working router with no fallback. This gives a solid, behaviorally honest picture of the experimental nature.

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 moderately dense but every sentence carries meaningful information: beta status, parity with ask_pipeworx, live-testing behavior, current state, usage guidance, and fallback guarantee. It is structured as a single paragraph with front-loaded identity and clear sequencing, though slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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 variant tool that explicitly points to ask_pipeworx as the behavioral baseline, the description is complete: it covers current state, parity, use case, and the lack of fallback. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the statement that the response shape is identical to 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%, with each parameter described as an alias for 'question'. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already documents them adequately, warranting the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by its experimental routing edge. The agent can clearly identify what the tool is and how it relates to its sibling.

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 when to use it: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing; results are compared against the stable router to decide what merges.' This provides a clear usage condition and references the stable alternative, making the choice between siblings unambiguous.

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