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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses the experimental edge, the possibility of live routing improvements, the current inactive candidate state, and the fact that this is a full working router. This adds useful behavioral context that the agent needs to manage expectations.

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 longer than strictly necessary but front-loads the essential facts: beta, identical to stable, candidate routing, current status, and usage instruction. Each sentence earns its place, though some redundancy exists around being a full router and having the same tools/arguments/shape.

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 fully explains what the tool is, its current behavioral state (no active candidate), how to use it, and how it compares to the stable sibling. Even without an output schema, it notes the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx, making the tool fully actionable.

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?

The input schema covers all six parameters with descriptions and 100% coverage. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond saying 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which is consistent but not additive. 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 this as the beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with identical tools, arguments, and response shape, but with candidate routing improvements. It distinguishes itself from the stable sibling by its experimental nature and explicitly states it is a full working router, not a fallback.

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 says 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and notes that results are compared against the stable router. It also states that no candidate is currently active, so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly, giving clear guidance on when and how to use it relative to the sibling.

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