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

Annotations already indicate test-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it is an experimental edge with candidate routing improvements enabled live when under test, currently none active, and results are compared against the stable router. This clarifies the volatile nature of the tool without contradicting the 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 four sentences with no filler. Key information is front-loaded: beta identity, identical functionality, current state, and usage guidance. Each sentence earns its place, covering the critical nuances of an experimental tool without unnecessary verbosity.

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 provides enough context for an agent to correctly invoke the tool: it is identical to ask_pipeworx, so the agent can delegate understanding to that sibling. It covers current status, usage, and fallback behavior. It does not explain the response shape, but the statement 'same response shape' delegates that to the known sibling, which is acceptable. A slight gap remains for agents completely unfamiliar with ask_pipeworx.

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 schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond saying 'same arguments as ask_pipeworx', which is not specific to this schema. With high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description neither compensates nor detracts.

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, an identical universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx by emphasizing the experimental routing candidate aspect, so an agent can tell what it does. It falls short of 5 because it does not explicitly differentiate from the 'ask_pipeworx_grounded' sibling and assumes some familiarity with what a 'router' means.

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 states when to use this tool: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It names the alternative (ask_pipeworx) and gives the condition (wanting newest routing), along with the clarification that it is a full working router, not a fallback stub. It does not list formal exclusions, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.

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