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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds crucial live behavior: a candidate routing improvement may be active or not, currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and it does not fall back to anything but is a full working router. This contextualizes the beta status beyond what annotations provide.

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 information-dense and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Subsequent sentences add needed context about current state, usage, and experimental nature. Minor conversational phrases like 'right now' and 'just the experimental edge' could be trimmed, but every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the key contextual needs: current state, exact equivalence to ask_pipeworx, routing behavior, and that it is fully functional. It relies on the sibling ask_pipeworx for specific response-shape details, which is acceptable given the explicit reference, but slightly reduces completeness on its own.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents 'question' and all five aliases with descriptions. The description mentions 'same arguments as ask_pipeworx' but does not add new meaning about how to phrase the question or any format expectations. Baseline 3 applies because the schema fully covers parameters.

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 version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same 5,724 tools, arguments, and response shape. It explicitly differentiates from the stable sibling by noting candidate routing improvements are sometimes active. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool is or how it differs from ask_pipeworx.

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 says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and mentions that results are compared against the stable router. This names the alternative and gives an explicit when-to-use condition. The phrase 'experimental edge' also implies stability considerations, providing practical guidance.

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