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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds crucial context beyond that: it is a beta with live candidate routing only when under test, currently no candidate is active so it matches stable exactly, and it is a full working router rather than a fallback. This is strong disclosure of dynamic behavior.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core 'beta version of ask_pipeworx' identity, then current status, usage instruction, and a clarifying caveat. Slightly dense but every sentence adds value; 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 universal router with a simple one-required-string schema, the description provides essential context: relationship to stable, current experimental state, and that response shape matches ask_pipeworx. It doesn't describe return values in detail, but it references the sibling for that, which is acceptable given no output schema.

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%, with all six parameters documented (question plus five aliases). The description only says 'same arguments' and doesn't add parameter-level detail, but the schema fully carries that burden, so baseline 3 applies.

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 this as 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router (same 5,743 tools, same arguments, same response shape)' and distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx by noting experimental routing improvements. This gives a specific verb/resource and separates it from siblings without opening schemas.

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 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing,' giving a clear condition for use. The stable ask_pipeworx is implied as the alternative, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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