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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds critical context: it's a beta with candidate routing improvements that may change behavior, currently has no active candidate, and is a full working router rather than a fallback. This goes beyond annotations and clarifies the experimental edge.

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 concise yet packed with essential information: identity, current state, usage instruction, and reassurance of functionality. Each sentence earns its place, and the key purpose 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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, current state, and usage. It references 'same response shape' as ask_pipeworx, which is sufficient since ask_pipeworx likely has its own documentation. No output schema exists, but the description's reference to the stable counterpart fills the gap adequately.

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 six parameters (aliases for question) fully described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but since the schema already documents them comprehensively, the 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 states this is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router for 5,801 tools, with identical arguments and response shape. It explicitly differentiates from the stable ask_pipeworx by noting the experimental routing candidate mechanism, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and mentions results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. This tells the agent when to prefer this tool and implies when not to (for stable routing). It also names the alternative (ask_pipeworx) directly.

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