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

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: the experimental nature, the fact that routing improvements may be live or inactive, the retirement date of the last candidate, and that it falls back to nothing. This temporal/experimental context goes well beyond the 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 sentences, each carrying distinct information: beta status, identity with ask_pipeworx, current inactive-candidate state, and usage guidance plus a clarification that it is a real router. Slightly dense, but no sentence is wasted and all are front-loaded around the core identity.

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 wrapper/beta router, the description is complete: it explains the relationship to ask_pipeworx, the live-testing lifecycle, the current state, the fallback semantics, and the response shape (same as ask_pipeworx). No output schema exists, but the 'same response shape' note covers return expectations adequately.

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%, so the schema fully documents all six parameters including the alias relationships. The description only says 'same arguments' without adding new parameter-level meaning, which meets the baseline but does not exceed what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb+resource: it is the 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx', an identical universal router with candidate routing improvements. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by the beta/experimental framing and explicitly notes it matches ask_pipeworx exactly when no candidate is active.

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 instructs when to use the tool: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also explains the experimental context (results compared against the stable router) and clarifies it is a full working router, not a stub. This gives an agent clear selection criteria against the stable sibling.

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