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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, so the bar is lower, but the description adds critical behavioral context annotations cannot express: 'candidate routing improvements enabled live whenever one is under test', the current inactive state, and the retirement date (2026-07-26). It also discloses that results are compared against the stable router, and reassures that this 'IS a full working router' — genuinely valuable beyond the hints.

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?

Five sentences, each earning its place: identity, current state, usage, comparison purpose, and functionality reassurance. The core fact ('Beta version of ask_pipeworx... identical universal router') is front-loaded. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, with the specific date (2026-07-26) being a nice-to-have detail rather than essential.

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 complex universal router with no output schema, the description covers identity, live operational state, usage guidance, and functionality, while relying on 'same response shape' to defer format details to the stable sibling knowledge. It does not describe error behavior or failure modes of the experimental edge, but that is a minor omission given how thoroughly it handles the beta-versus-stable nuance.

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 every property documented as an alias for 'question', so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds only that this tool takes 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which is mild context but doesn't deepen semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear identity and function: 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router (same 5,718 tools, same arguments, same response shape)'. It uses a specific verb/resource framing, positions itself relative to the stable ask_pipeworx sibling, and even distinguishes from ask_pipeworx_grounded by naming the exact relationship to the stable variant.

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 gives explicit usage direction: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing', naming the sibling alternative and the condition that selects it. It also clarifies the tool is fully functional with no fallback needed. However, it never explicitly states when NOT to use it (e.g., when production stability is preferred over the 'experimental edge'), leaving that to inference.

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