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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds non-redundant behavioral context: behavior may vary live when a routing candidate is under test, no candidate is currently active (as of 2026-07-26), and 'Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router' reassures that beta does not mean a stub. This temporal variability is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure an agent needs. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense sentences, each earning its place: definition, current state, usage directive, and fallback clarification. The key identity ('Beta version of ask_pipeworx') is front-loaded. It is slightly verbose with specifics like the date and tool count, but those details serve the experimental-context purpose rather than padding.

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 tool with temporal variability, the description covers the essentials: what it is, current identical-to-stable state, how to invoke it, and that it is fully functional. Return shape is handled by referencing 'same response shape' as ask_pipeworx, which is reasonable given no output schema. It could add a note on when to prefer the stable router, but nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 `question` required and five documented aliases (q, text, input, prompt, query), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds only the confirmation that arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, which is mild corroboration rather than new semantic detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high 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 clearly identifies the tool as 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx' and defines it as an 'identical universal router (same 5,908 tools, same arguments, same response shape)', which establishes a specific action and resource. It explicitly differentiates from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling and, implicitly, from ask_pipeworx_grounded by positioning this as the experimental routing edge. The core 'what it does' is partly inherited from the parent tool name rather than fully self-contained, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 an explicit when-to-use directive: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing'. It also explains why this tool exists (results are compared against the stable router to decide merges), which helps an agent decide between it and the stable sibling. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention the grounded alternative, so it isn't a full when/when-not spec.

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