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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent; the description goes beyond by revealing that routing improvements may be live under test and that no candidate is currently active (retired 2026-07-26), so behavior currently matches the stable router but may drift later. The statement 'Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router, just the experimental edge' preempts a wrong assumption that beta might be a stub. This is valuable behavioral context not present in the schema or annotations.

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 but not wasteful, front-loading the beta identity and the 'identical router' fact before explaining the dynamic test state. The historical retirement date is slightly extraneous for an agent deciding how to call the tool, but the rest of each sentence carries operational or behavioral value.

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 query-only router with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential context: what it is, how it currently behaves, when to use it, and the fact that it is not a fallback stub. It also points to the stable ask_pipeworx for the response shape and arguments, closing the gap left by the missing output schema.

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 string aliases for the natural-language question; the description adds no parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides. Per the rubric, with full schema coverage the baseline is 3 even without parameter text in the description.

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 identifies ask_pipeworx_beta as a beta version of the ask_pipeworx universal router with the same 5,767 tools, arguments, and response shape. This clearly states a concrete function (routing questions to a large toolset) and differentiates it from stable and other siblings by its experimental candidate-routing behavior. No tautology or vagueness.

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: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing,' giving a concrete condition for choosing this variant. It also clarifies that results are compared against the stable router, but it does not explicitly say when NOT to use it, e.g., when stability is required, leaving that exclusion implicit.

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