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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable context about the experimental nature (candidate routing improvements, current equivalence due to no active candidate) and clarifies it is a full working router. It does not contradict annotations.

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 somewhat verbose but every sentence adds context about the beta status, usage, and current behavior. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds necessary nuance. No wasted words, though a slightly shorter version could achieve the same effect.

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 without an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, when to use it, the beta context, and how it currently behaves (identical to stable). Given the richness of the annotations and the clarity of the description, nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 all 6 parameters are already documented in the schema as aliases for 'question'. The description mentions 'same arguments' but adds no additional semantics beyond re-stating what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies since 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 states it is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, with the same universal router capabilities. It names the sibling it is not (stable ask_pipeworx) and explicitly mentions the shared toolset and response shape, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It names the alternative (ask_pipeworx) and explains the comparison context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., 'for stable results use ask_pipeworx'), though this is strongly implied.

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