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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description adds value by disclosing temporal behavior: no candidate is active as of 2026-07-26, so it currently 'matches ask_pipeworx exactly,' and behavior will shift when a candidate goes live. 'Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router' preempts the misconception that beta means partial functionality, and the note that results feed merge decisions is honest about experiment participation.

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 front-loaded sentences: core identity and behavior are in the first sentence, with usage and caveats following. Some redundancy exists (the no-candidate-active statement partly restates 'whenever one is under test'), and the precise retirement date 2026-07-26 will become stale.

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 no output schema, the description covers what the router does, its current state, usage, and relationship to the stable version. The response shape is handled by reference ('same response shape' as ask_pipeworx), which is acceptable but leaves an agent without output details unless the sibling schema is inspected.

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 all six parameters (question plus five aliases) documented in the schema, so the structured data carries the load. The description adds nothing beyond 'same arguments' as the stable sibling, so the 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 opens by identifying the tool as the 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx' and a 'universal router' over 5,798 tools, with 'same arguments, same response shape.' This states a clear resource and function and differentiates it from the stable sibling through the experimental candidate-routing framing, so an agent can distinguish it from ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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?

'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' gives an explicit activation condition, and the contrast with 'the stable router' implies ask_pipeworx is the production alternative. It stops short of stating a firm when-not-to-use rule, such as preferring the stable version for high-stakes or production-critical queries.

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