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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely valuable behavioral context beyond them: that behavior varies over time (candidate routing enabled live when under test), the current inactive state with a specific retirement date (2026-07-26), that it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and that results feed merge decisions against the stable router. No contradiction with annotations; the read-only idempotent character is consistent with an ask-style router.

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 the no-fallback clarification. Front-loaded with the core identity in the first sentence. Slightly wordy in places (e.g., the triple 'same ... same ... same' and the detailed parenthetical), but the temporal complexity justifies the length.

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 tool with one required parameter, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description covers purpose, usage, and dynamic behavior. The only gap is that the response shape is deferred via 'same response shape' rather than described, requiring the agent to look at ask_pipeworx — acceptable given the explicit equivalence claim.

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% — all six parameters (question plus five aliases) are documented with the alias relationship explicitly stated. The description adds only the meta-remark 'same arguments' rather than param-levell detail, which is acceptable because the schema already carries the full burden. Baseline 3 applies.

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 exactly what the tool is: 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router (same 5,798 tools, same arguments, same response shape)' with candidate routing improvements. It names the stable sibling and the grounded sibling is present in the tool list, so an agent can distinguish ask_pipeworx_beta from ask_pipeworx without opening either schema.

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?

Provides an explicit when-condition: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It references the stable router as the comparison baseline and clarifies the tool is a full router, not a stub. However, there is no explicit when-not statement (e.g., 'use ask_pipeworx for stable behavior'), leaving that inference to the agent.

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