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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds important behavioral context beyond that: it is a live experimental router, may be under candidate testing, and currently matches the stable version. It also explicitly states 'Falls back to nothing' to prevent the misconception that it is a degraded mode. This goes well beyond the 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 compact yet information-dense: it states the beta nature, identical interface, current inactive status, usage guidance, comparison purpose, and fallback behavior in a few sentences. Every sentence earns its place and the most important distinction (identical to stable, experimental edge) is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required string parameter, rich annotations, no output schema needed beyond saying response shape matches ask_pipeworx), the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly: what it is, when to use it, current state, and expected behavior. The comparison to ask_pipeworx provides all missing contextual detail.

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 alias (q, text, input, query, prompt) documented and the primary 'question' parameter described as accepting natural language with aliases. The description also states the arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, reinforcing semantics. However, it adds little beyond the schema, which already covers all six parameters, so a baseline of 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 identifies it as a beta variant of ask_pipeworx with identical routing behavior and explicitly states that no candidate is active, so it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning it as the experimental edge for routing improvements, which is a specific and meaningful distinction.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and notes results are compared against the stable router. It also names the alternative (ask_pipeworx) and clarifies that it is a full working router, not a fallback stub, which removes ambiguity about when to invoke it.

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