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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable runtime context: no candidate is currently active, it 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly,' and candidate improvements are enabled live when under test. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 a few sentences and front-loads the key fact that this is a beta version of ask_pipeworx. It packs in current status, usage direction, and comparison behavior without excessive padding, though the final 'experimental edge' phrasing is slightly embellished.

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 tool with no output schema, the description explains the relationship to ask_pipeworx, the current inactive candidate state, the expected usage pattern, and the evaluation purpose. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly, and the response shape is defined by reference to 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?

Input schema coverage is 100% and every parameter is fully described as an alias for 'question.' The description only says 'same arguments' without adding new parameter details, so the schema carries the full semantic burden. 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 opens with 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx' and clearly identifies this as a universal router with 'the same 5,743 tools, same arguments, same response shape.' It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by emphasizing the experimental routing improvements.

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 condition for selection. It also states that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges, implying the stable version is the alternative, though it stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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