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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: this is an experimental router with candidate routing improvements, results are compared against the stable router, and it is a full working router rather than a degraded fallback. 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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the tool, the second gives current status, the third gives usage guidance, and the fourth clarifies it is a full router. The description is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no fluff.

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 beta duplicate with no output schema, the description is complete: it references the identical response shape, explains the experimental behavior, and states the current equivalence to ask_pipeworx. The only minor gap is the absence of an explicit return value description, but the 'same response shape' reference covers that for an agent familiar with 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 only adds 'same arguments' as a reference to ask_pipeworx, which adds little beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It explicitly differentiates this from the stable ask_pipeworx by highlighting the experimental edge, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 states 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and notes that with no active candidate it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. This gives a clear condition for use, though it does not explicitly list cases where the stable version should be preferred.

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