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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not repeat those. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: this is the experimental edge, candidates are enabled live only when under test, results are compared against the stable router, and there is no fallback—it remains a fully working router.

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 but efficient, covering purpose, current state, usage guidance, and the compare-and-merge rationale. The specific retirement date may become stale, but every sentence earns its place by distinguishing this beta tool from the stable router.

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 reasonably references the same response shape as ask_pipeworx rather than re-documenting it. It provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly: what it is, when to use it, and that it is a full functioning router. A short note on the response format would push it to complete, but the reference to being identical to ask_pipeworx covers this well.

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%, so the schema fully documents the `question` parameter and its aliases. The description only says 'same arguments' and defers to ask_pipeworx, which adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 the tool as the beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same 5,724 tools, arguments, and response shape. It differentiates from the stable sibling by stating candidate routing improvements may be enabled, making its purpose and scope explicit.

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?

The description explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is desired, and that it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly because no candidate is active. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use clause or comparison against ask_pipeworx_grounded, but the guidance is clear enough for correct selection.

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