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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it is a full working router ('Falls back to nothing'), it is the experimental edge, and results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. 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 and each contributes: beta status and equivalence, current candidate state, and usage guidance. The 'outcome evidence' date is a minor detail but adds credibility and context. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but not padded.

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?

Given the simple single-required-parameter schema, strong annotations, and clear response-shape reference to ask_pipeworx, the description covers what an agent needs to call it correctly. It explains the beta nature, current no-op state, and full-fledged behavior. No output schema is needed since the same response shape is promised.

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 every parameter documented and aliases explicitly listed. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond saying the tool accepts the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, which is sufficient given the schema's completeness. 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 identifies the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx with the same routing surface, arguments, and response shape. It differentiates it from the stable sibling by emphasizing experimental routing improvements and references the exact sibling it mirrors. Lacking a direct verb like 'ask' or 'route' keeps it from a 5, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also clarifies the current state (no active candidate, so it matches stable) which helps the agent decide. It doesn't articulate when not to use it or contrast with ask_pipeworx_grounded, so it's clear but not exhaustive.

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