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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, which are comprehensive for safety and side-effect clarity. The description adds that this is the experimental edge, that candidate routing improvements are live only when under test, that none is currently active, and that it returns the same response shape as the stable router. It does not contradict annotations and gives useful context beyond the structured hints.

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 compact paragraph with essential context, front-loading the beta identity and equivalence to ask_pipeworx, then explaining the experimental routing behavior and current status. It is somewhat longer than strictly necessary but each sentence adds distinct information: identity, scope, behavior, usage instruction, and fallback guarantee. No redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what the agent can expect. It states the same response shape as ask_pipeworx, which is sufficient because the sibling tool presumably defines the shape. It also clarifies that it is fully functional and not a stub, preempting the main risk in beta tools: unreliability. The only minor gap is not explaining what routing improvements are or how results are compared, but that is not necessary for invoking the tool, and the explicit equivalence to ask_pipeworx covers usage expectations.

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 description of the question parameter and its aliases fully documented. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema because it explicitly says same arguments as ask_pipeworx, but the schema already covers all six parameters comprehensively. A baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 variant of ask_pipeworx—a universal router with the same tool set, arguments, and response shape as the stable sibling—while specifying the current status (no active candidate, currently identical to ask_pipeworx). It distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx by positioning as the experimental edge for comparing routing improvements.

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?

It explicitly states when to use it: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It explains the purpose of results comparison against the stable router and explicitly warns it falls back to nothing, meaning it is a full working router rather than a stub. This provides clear context and disambiguates from sibling ask_pipeworx.

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