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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral disclosures: it is a beta with candidate routing improvements, currently no candidate is active, it matches ask_pipeworx exactly now, results are compared against the stable router, and it is a full working router with no fallback. This goes well 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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: defining the beta nature, stating current behavior, and giving usage guidance. It is somewhat long with parenthetical clarifications but remains focused and front-loaded with the most critical beta status information. No sentence is wasteful.

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 router with no output schema, the description is complete: it clarifies its current equivalence to ask_pipeworx, the absence of an active candidate, the experimental purpose, and the exact usage instruction. The phrase 'same response shape' addresses return behavior sufficiently, and the explanation of fallback behavior removes ambiguity about reliability.

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 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description mentions 'same arguments' and the required 'question' parameter but adds no new semantic detail about the parameters themselves. Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.

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 states a specific purpose: a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It clearly differentiates itself from the sibling ask_pipeworx by its beta/experimental status and from ask_pipeworx_grounded by being the standard router. The verb+resource are explicit.

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 says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, providing a clear usage context. It names the stable alternative and implies exclusion from stable/production use via 'beta' and 'experimental edge,' but it does not explicitly state a when-not condition. The guidance is clear but lacks an explicit exclusion statement.

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