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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those: the experimental status, the possibility of candidate routing changes being live, the current no-candidate state, and that it is a full working router with no fallback. This gives an agent an accurate expectation of risk and behavior.

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 slightly longer than necessary but every sentence earns its place: it defines what the tool is, explains the current experimental state, gives usage direction, and clarifies that this is not a stub. The key term 'beta' is front-loaded. Minor redundancy in the final clause does not significantly hurt clarity.

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?

The description is complete for an agent to select and use the tool: it covers the routing scope, the current behavior, how to use it relative to ask_pipeworx, and the response shape. There is no output schema, but 'same response shape' as ask_pipeworx adequately addresses return expectations for a tool with a well-known sibling.

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 the input schema fully documenting the 'question' parameter and its aliases. The description only says 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which adds no semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries the parameter meaning.

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 states this is the beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same 5,798 tools, same arguments, and same response shape. It explicitly identifies what makes it distinct: candidate routing improvements tested live. This differentiates it from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling and other tools.

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 explicit context: use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and results are compared against the stable router. It also notes that with no active candidate it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the beta framing and 'when you want the newest routing' make the intended usage clear.

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