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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds genuinely non-obvious context: it discloses that candidates are enabled live under test, that results are compared against the stable router, and crucially that it 'falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router,' addressing the biggest agent fear about a beta tool.

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?

Front-loads the essential fact (beta of ask_pipeworx) and is reasonably tight. There is mild redundancy between 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly' and 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx,' but each sentence otherwise carries real information about the routing experiment.

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 router tool with no output schema, the description covers the return shape ('same response shape'), the safety profile, and the critical no-fallback behavior. An agent has enough to call it correctly and to understand the experimental risk.

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 coverage is 100% and every alias is documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description only says 'same arguments' and adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific resource and nature: 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router... same arguments, same response shape.' It explicitly names and differentiates itself from its sibling ask_pipeworx as the experimental edge, so an agent can tell the two apart immediately.

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?

Gives a clear selection rule: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing,' naming the alternative and the condition. It also flags the current caveat that it matches the stable router exactly, though it stops short of an explicit 'when not to use' beyond that.

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