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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses critical behavioral traits: behavior can change live as candidates are tested, no candidate is currently active so it exactly matches the stable router, and it 'falls back to nothing' — it is a full working router, not a probe. The disclosure of temporal volatility is especially valuable and directly addresses a likely agent misconception.

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?

Five sentences with a clear logical flow: identity, current state, usage directive, evaluation purpose, and safety reassurance. Each sentence earns its place — notably the final 'falls back to nothing' clarification prevents a likely misinterpretation. Slightly long, but the density of distinct information justifies the length.

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 beta variant tool with no output schema, the description covers identity, live status, usage, evaluation purpose, and functional completeness. 'Same response shape' as ask_pipeworx indirectly addresses return values. The only gap is guidance on error/edge behavior or when the stable version should be preferred, which is minor given the reference to the stable sibling.

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 fully documents the question parameter and its five aliases; the description adds no parameter-level detail beyond noting 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the load and the description's alias reference is sufficient given the sibling relationship.

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 function — a universal router ('same 5,743 tools, same arguments, same response shape') and immediately identifies what makes it distinct from its sibling: it is the beta version of ask_pipeworx with candidate routing improvements. It clearly distinguishes from ask_pipeworx (stable) via the beta framing, though its identity is defined relationally rather than independently.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use directive: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It names the alternative (ask_pipeworx) and explains the purpose of the beta (results are compared against the stable router to decide merges). However, it never states an explicit when-not-to-use condition, such as preferring the stable ask_pipeworx when guaranteed-stable behavior is required.

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