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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the candidate routing improvements are 'live whenever one is under test,' currently none is active so behavior matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and it 'falls back to nothing' meaning it is a fully functional router, not a stub. This transparently discloses the experimental nature and current equivalence state.

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 well-structured and reasonably concise given the complexity of explaining a beta variant. It front-loads the key distinction (beta of ask_pipeworx, identical router) and explains the experimental context. The parenthetical about the retired candidate adds detail but is slightly excessive; however, it does provide useful context for why behavior currently matches exactly.

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 a router tool with a rich schema and annotations. It explains the experimental nature, current equivalence to the stable version, how results are used, and that it's a full working router. No output schema exists, but the description notes the same response shape as ask_pipeworx, which orients the agent. Minor gap: it doesn't describe the response format in detail, but referencing the sibling's shape covers this.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly, including aliases. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics beyond referring to 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden.

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 identifies this as a beta variant of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with 5,798 tools, same arguments and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by explicitly stating it has candidate routing improvements enabled live, while also noting that currently no candidate is active. This is a specific verb+resource with clear sibling differentiation.

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 guidance: use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and explains that results are compared against the stable router to decide what merges. It also clarifies this is a full working router, so the agent knows it can rely on it. It implicitly tells the agent when to prefer this over the stable ask_pipeworx sibling.

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