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

Annotations already mark the tool as safe (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial behavioral context: beta status, live candidate routing enabled only while under test, no active candidate as of a specific date, no fallback, and confirmation that it is a full working router. This goes well beyond the annotations and fully discloses the experimental nature.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: beta identity, current candidate state, usage instruction, and no-fallback clarification. The critical scoping information is front-loaded, and despite being dense, there is no wasted wording.

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?

The description covers current state, usage, and relationship to the stable router, while annotations cover the safety profile. The absent output schema is mitigated by the explicit statement of an identical response shape to ask_pipeworx, though a standalone agent unfamiliar with ask_pipeworx would lack full response details; still sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool.

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?

The input schema covers all six parameters with detailed descriptions and 100% coverage, so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description only repeats that arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx and adds no syntax or format details, which matches the baseline of 3 for fully-documented schemas.

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 with the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape. It explicitly differentiates it from the stable ask_pipeworx by its experimental edge, giving an agent a concrete model of what the tool does and how it relates to its sibling.

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 instructs using this tool exactly like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is desired and explains that outcomes are compared against the stable router to decide merges. It does not state when-not-to-use preferences or mention alternatives like ask_pipeworx_grounded, so it falls just short of a full 5.

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