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

With annotations already declaring readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those hints: it reveals that routing behavior may vary because experimental candidates are enabled live, that behavior is currently identical to the stable router, and that it always functions fully rather than falling back. This is exactly the kind of transparency annotations alone cannot communicate.

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 compact and information-dense, with the essential beta distinction and current routing status front-loaded. The parenthetical list of identical tools, arguments, and response shape is somewhat verbose but serves to emphasize that this is a fully functional router despite the beta label. Each sentence contributes useful operational information.

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 this is a single-question input tool with a fully documented schema, complete safety annotations, and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, why it exists, how it differs from its sibling, current live behavior, and the fact that it is not a fallback stub. Nothing important is missing.

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 schema already documents all 6 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions that arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, which reinforces that the single question argument is sufficient, but it does not need to add parameter-level detail because the schema fully covers it.

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 opens with a precise identification of the tool as the beta version of ask_pipeworx, explicitly distinguishing it from the stable sibling while stating it shares the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape. It eliminates ambiguity about what the tool is 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?

The description explicitly instructs to use it like ask_pipeworx when wanting the newest routing, and clearly states the experimental purpose: results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. It also explains a critical current condition—no candidate is active right now—so the agent knows it currently behaves identically to the stable version.

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