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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is a full working router, not a fallback/degraded stub; it is the experimental edge; and candidate routing improvements may change behavior live. This is exactly the kind of extra context the annotations don't carry.

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 a single block of 3 sentences, front-loaded with the beta status and key distinction, then uses-specific guidance. It is information-dense without being bloated. Minor deduct for the slightly rambling last sentence ('Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router, just the experimental edge'), which is slightly repetitive after the opening.

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 that mirrors an existing sibling, the description completely covers what an agent needs: identical behavior, same args, same response shape, current experimental status, no active candidate, and the routing intent. There is no output schema, but the description explicitly says the response shape matches ask_pipeworx, which is sufficient given the sibling exists.

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% and the schema itself documents the main 'question' parameter plus aliases. The description reinforces that the tool accepts the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, but doesn't enumerate parameters. Since the schema already covers all parameters, and the description adds the important 'same arguments as ask_pipeworx' context, a 4 is justified.

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 verb+resource ('Ask Pipeworx Beta') and explicitly distinguishes it from ask_pipeworx as the experimental routing variant. It explains what the tool is ('identical universal router'), its relation to the stable version, and its current behavioral equivalence. This is far more specific than a vague name/title restatement and clearly differentiates it from the sibling stable router.

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 says 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and explains how results are compared against the stable router. It also tells the agent that no candidate is currently active, so behavior matches ask_pipeworx exactly. This is strong when-to-use guidance with an explicit alternative named.

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