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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It does: live candidate routing may be enabled during tests, no candidate is currently active, and there is no fallback — it is a full working router. This materially informs an agent about behavior that annotations cannot capture.

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 identity, then provides current state, usage, and fallback behavior in short, information-dense sentences. Every sentence earns its place, including the specific date that explains why the current behavior matches the stable router. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 there is no output schema, the description still communicates response-shape parity with ask_pipeworx, which is the key missing piece. It covers current runtime state, usage equivalence, experimental nature, and failure semantics with no fallback. An agent has enough to decide when to invoke it and what to expect.

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 the structured schema already documents the parameters. The description adds that arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx and that the tool is used the same way, but it does not add new semantic detail about each parameter. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific object scope: it is the beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router over 5,798 tools with the same arguments and response shape. It clearly distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling by highlighting its experimental routing edge. The purpose is not merely restated; it is concrete and actionable.

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?

The description explicitly tells the agent to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is desired, and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It also clarifies the current state: no candidate is active, so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It could be stronger by naming explicit exclusion cases for stable routing, but the primary decision logic is clear.

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