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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds essential extras: candidate routing improvements may be live, the current active-candidate status, explicit parity with the stable router right now, and that it is a full router rather than a fallback. This is exactly the kind of context beyond annotations that an agent needs when choosing a beta tool.

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, all useful and front-loaded with the most important fact: this is a beta variant of ask_pipeworx with the same interface. Some redundancy exists ('identical', 'matches exactly', 'full working router') but it serves to prevent the common misconception that a beta tool is just a fallback wrapper.

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 variant, the description covers current behavior, usage equivalence, experimental purpose, and response-shape parity. It does not describe the output schema, but it explicitly references 'same response shape' as ask_pipeworx, which is reasonable given the strong tie to that sibling. Missing a direct link to ask_pipeworx's documentation is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, with all six parameters and the question aliases documented. The description only says 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which adds no new semantic detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter semantics fully.

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 the beta version of ask_pipeworx and explains that it is an identical universal router with candidate routing improvements. It distinguishes the tool from ask_pipeworx by framing it as the experimental edge. However, it does not use a direct verb phrase like 'routes a natural-language question', so the core action is slightly implicit.

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 and states the selection context: 'when you want the newest routing'. It adds important current-state context (no candidate active, currently identical) that helps the agent decide. It does not explicitly name exclusions or compare with ask_pipeworx_grounded, but the guidance is sufficient for a beta variant.

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