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 valuable context beyond those: it is a full working router with no fallback, currently identical to the stable version, and that candidate routing improvements are enabled live when under test. This gives the agent an accurate model of the tool's experimental nature.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently explains current status, usage, and no-fallback behavior. Every sentence adds distinct information: beta definition, current candidate state, usage directive, merge purpose, and reassurance that it is a full working router. No wasted words.

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 explains the relationship to ask_pipeworx, the experimental nature, current parity, and fallback behavior, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It does not restate the response shape, but 'same response shape' is a clear pointer to ask_pipeworx, and no output schema exists. Minor gap: no explicit statement that it accepts the same question/alias parameters, though 'same arguments' covers that.

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 parameters documented as aliases for 'question' plus 'question' itself. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which is redundant. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full parameter documentation burden.

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 ('Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router') and clearly distinguishes it from the stable sibling ask_pipeworx by framing it as the experimental edge with candidate routing improvements. It also enumerates what stays constant (same 5,908 tools, arguments, response shape), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool is for.

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 usage condition: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also explains the purpose (results compared against the stable router to decide merges) and notes the current state (no candidate active, so it matches ask_pipeworx). It does not explicitly say 'use ask_pipeworx when you want stable routing,' but that is strongly implied.

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