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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds meaningful context: it can switch behavior live depending on which routing candidate is under test, currently behaves identically to ask_pipeworx, has no fallback, and its outputs are compared against the stable router. This goes well beyond the annotation hints.

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 essential 'beta version of ask_pipeworx' framing. Each sentence contributes status, behavior, or usage context, though a few phrases like 'same 5,743 tools, same arguments, same response shape' are slightly redundant with the earlier 'identical universal 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?

For a wrapper-like router tool with no output schema and a fully documented single parameter, the description provides a complete operational picture: what it is, when to use it, current live status, and experimental implications. It could slightly improve by explicitly naming ask_pipeworx_grounded as an alternative, but this is not a meaningful gap.

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 aliases for the same 'question' string. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema already fully explains the single meaningful input, so the baseline of 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 this as the beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable sibling by noting candidate routing improvements that can be enabled live, making the purpose and differentiation 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 wanting the newest routing, and notes that with no active candidate it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It implies the stable router should be used when experimental routing is not desired, but does not explicitly name that exclusion or mention ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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