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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: it is the experimental edge, may have routing improvements enabled live, and does not fall back to anything—'this IS a full working router.' This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core identity, then covers current state, usage, and fallback behavior. The phrase 'candidate routing improvements enabled live whenever one is under test' is slightly verbose, so it does not earn a perfect 5.

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 variant tool, the description covers identity, parity, current state, usage guidance, and experimental behavior. The main gap is that it assumes familiarity with ask_pipeworx's exact response shape, and there is no output schema to fill that in.

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 question and all five aliases documented. The description adds only that it accepts the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, which is helpful but not necessary since the schema already carries the parameter semantics.

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 states exactly what this is: the beta version of ask_pipeworx, an 'identical universal router' with the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape. It clearly distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx and the grounded variant in the sibling list.

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 explicit usage guidance: use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing. It also notes that no candidate is currently active, so it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and explains that results are compared against the stable router to inform merges.

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