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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context: behavior is dynamic ('candidate routing improvements enabled live whenever one is under test'), the current state is no-op ('No candidate is active right now'), and it is a full router rather than a stub. 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 sentences, each earning its place: identity, current state, usage guidance, and no-fallback reassurance. The key identifier ('Beta version of ask_pipeworx') is front-loaded. Slightly dense but appropriately so for a tool that must clarify its relationship to a stable twin.

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 twin of a known router, this is complete: it covers what it is, how it differs, current candidate status, how to use it, and that response shape matches ask_pipeworx (useful given no output schema). The only omission is interaction details like what happens if a live candidate routes poorly, which is minor.

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 documented as aliases for 'question'. The description only adds that arguments match ask_pipeworx, which is mild reinforcement rather than needed compensation. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific resource ('Beta version of ask_pipeworx') and a specific behavior ('identical universal router (same 5,767 tools, same arguments, same response shape)'). It actively differentiates from siblings by naming ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded, so an agent can distinguish the experimental edge from the stable router 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?

The description gives an explicit usage condition: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also implies the alternative (the stable router) and clarifies this is a full working router with no fallback. It stops short of a definitive 'use stable when you need reliability' exclusion, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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