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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: candidate routing improvements may be enabled live under test, fallback behavior is none (it's a full working router), and results are compared against stable for merge decisions. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 sized and front-loads the core purpose and caveat (beta, identical router). Each sentence adds context—current state, usage, comparison purpose, fallback clarity—though a couple of clauses could be trimmed without loss.

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 single-parameter router with rich annotations and no output schema, the description adequately explains behavior, current status, and relationship to the stable tool. It does not describe the response shape in detail, but the description states it matches ask_pipeworx exactly, which is sufficient given the sibling reference.

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%, so the schema fully documents the question parameter and its aliases. The description mentions 'same arguments' but adds no new parameter-level meaning; baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 explicitly states this is the beta version of ask_pipeworx with identical tool/argument/response shape, and clearly identifies it as a universal router. It differentiates from the stable ask_pipeworx by framing it as the experimental edge, which is specific and avoids confusion with siblings.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also clarifies the current state (no candidate active, matches ask_pipeworx exactly) and the broader testing context, which removes ambiguity about choosing between the beta and stable variants.

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