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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent behavior, and the description adds significant operational context: live candidate experiments, current inactive status with a retirement date, exact match to stable, and the fact that it is a full working router with no fallback. This goes well beyond annotation hints and prevents misinterpretation of the beta label.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then current status, then usage instruction, then a clear risk/fallback statement. Every sentence adds distinct information and none is filler, even though it is longer than a one-liner.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description states that the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx, which an agent can resolve through that sibling. Combined with annotations covering safety and the schema covering parameters, nothing critical is missing for correct invocation and expectation-setting.

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%: question is described and all five aliases are explicitly tied to it. The description adds only the meta-note 'same arguments' rather than new per-parameter meaning, so 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 with a precise definition: 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router' and enumerates what is shared (same 5,798 tools, same arguments, same response shape). It clearly differentiates from the stable sibling by labeling this the experimental edge, so an agent knows exactly what resource/verb combination it is invoking.

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 gives an explicit use condition: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and names the stable alternative. It also explains the comparison workflow against the stable router and warns that no candidate is currently active, which tells the agent current behavior matches the stable version.

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