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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds live experimental routing context — candidates may be active and change behavior — plus current status ('No candidate is active right now') and a clarification that this is a functioning router rather than a fallback. This is meaningful beyond annotations, though it doesn't detail failure modes or rate limits.

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 three focused sentences: it defines the tool, states the current experimental status, and gives usage direction. It is efficient, though the final sentence ('Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router') is slightly redundant with the first sentence and could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 router with no output schema, the description adequately covers its role, relationship to ask_pipeworx, current state, and usage. It doesn't enumerate the 5,724 tools or explain answer formats, but since it inherits ask_pipeworx's response shape and the sibling is available for details, this is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 documented as aliases for the required 'question' field. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics, merely stating 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already fully describes the parameters.

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?

Description clearly identifies ask_pipeworx_beta as a full universal router identical to ask_pipeworx, with explicit mention of tool count, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable sibling by the experimental routing edge, avoiding tautology and giving an agent an unambiguous purpose.

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 states when to use this tool: 'when you want the newest routing,' and clarifies that results are compared against the stable router. It also names ask_pipeworx as the counterpart, implicitly routing stable use cases to the sibling. This gives clear selection guidance.

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