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

Annotations already cover safety (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: candidate routing improvements can be enabled live, no candidate is currently active, and this is a full working router with no fallback. This tells the agent that behavior may diverge from the stable tool during experiments.

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?

Four sentences, with the beta relationship and scope front-loaded. Each sentence adds information: identity, current status, usage guidance, and fallback behavior. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary due to the date and repeated ask_pipeworx references, but it remains efficient.

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 read-only question router with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the same response shape as ask_pipeworx, the arguments, and the experimental nature. It relies on the agent knowing ask_pipeworx's response shape, but that sibling is present in the tool list. The main missing piece is a concrete description of the returned answer format, mitigated by the 'same response shape' clause.

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 all six parameters documented as string aliases for 'question'. The description only says 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the semantic load.

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 a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router over 5,798 tools with the same arguments and response shape. It is positioned explicitly relative to the stable ask_pipeworx sibling. It could be more self-contained about what 'ask' actually does, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 gives an explicit usage condition: use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and notes results are compared against the stable router. It also explains the current state — no active candidate, so it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It does not enumerate when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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