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

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: candidate routing improvements are enabled live during tests, no candidate is currently active (matching ask_pipeworx exactly), and this is a full working router with no fallback. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the essential identity: 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router.' Each sentence contributes details about current state, usage, and the tool's working status. The final clarification about fallback is slightly redundant but reinforces a key behavioral point.

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 no-output-schema tool, the description covers identity, current experimental state, usage guidance, and response shape via reference to ask_pipeworx ('same response shape'). It doesn't detail the output structure itself, but since the tool is defined as identical to a known sibling, this reference is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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%, and all six parameters are explicitly documented as aliases for question. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond telling the agent to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx, so the schema carries the semantic weight. 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 clearly states this is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same 5,908 tools, arguments, and response shape. This makes the tool's function and relationship to its primary sibling unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from ask_pipeworx_grounded, but the core purpose is well defined.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also explains results are compared against the stable router to decide merges, implicitly telling agents to use the stable ask_pipeworx when they don't want the experimental edge. It doesn't enumerate exclusions or other sibling alternatives, but the main selection condition is clear.

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