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

Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it discloses the beta nature, that candidate routing improvements may be enabled live, the current status ('No candidate is active right now'), and that the tool is a full working router with no fallback. This is exactly the kind of stateful, decision-relevant detail annotations cannot 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 long but every sentence contributes useful information: beta status, sibling relationship, current test state, explicit usage instruction, and a clarification that it is fully functional. It is front-loaded with the core definition and avoids fluff. Could be tightened slightly, but remains efficient.

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 routing tool with no output schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: what it does, how it relates to the stable version, when to use it, and the current operational status. The parameter count and alias details are fully handled by the schema, so there are no gaps in the ability to select and call this tool correctly.

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 already documents all six parameters as aliases for 'question'. The description references 'same arguments' but adds no new semantics about parameter meaning or usage beyond what the schema provides. 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 clearly identifies the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router that dispatches questions to 5,767 tools. It names the specific resource, the verb 'ask', and explicitly distinguishes it from the stable sibling by describing the test-candidate mechanism. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also explains that results are compared against the stable router, and states that currently no candidate is active so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly. This is strong directional context for choosing it over the sibling.

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