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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: candidate routing improvements are enabled live only when under test, no candidate is active as of a specific date, and this is a full working router with no degraded fallback. This transparency helps an agent understand the experimental edge without overestimating risk.

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 tool's identity as the beta variant and stays information-dense. There is some redundancy between 'identical', 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly', and 'use it exactly like ask_pipeworx', but each repetition adds emphasis rather than confusion.

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 the rich annotations, high schema coverage, and the explicit statement that the response shape matches ask_pipeworx, the description gives an agent enough context to call the tool correctly. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the reference to ask_pipeworx's identical response shape. It does not document every edge behavior, but it is sufficiently complete for a router-style tool.

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%, with the 'question' parameter fully described and all aliases documented in the schema. The description adds only that the tool accepts 'the same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which does not materially enhance parameter understanding. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the explanation burden.

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 states this is the beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same toolset, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable sibling ask_pipeworx by emphasizing experimental routing improvements, so an agent can differentiate it without opening schemas.

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 to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is desired, and clarifies that results are compared against the stable router. It implies the stable version exists for production-stable use, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus ask_pipeworx_grounded or other alternatives.

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