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

Annotations already mark this as idempotent and non-destructive, so the description's job is lighter. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it is a live experimental edge with candidate improvements that may be enabled, no candidate is currently active, and it is a full working router with no fallback. This clarifies behavior that the annotations alone would not convey.

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 a paragraph of four sentences, but each sentence adds distinct value: beta identity, current no-active-candidate state, usage instruction, and clarification that it is fully functional. It is front-loaded with the most important information (beta version of ask_pipeworx). While slightly wordy, it is appropriately sized for a tool with this much behavioral nuance.

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 the tool's complexity as a live experimental router, the description covers the key questions: what it is, how it differs from the stable version, when to use it, and its current state. It does not describe the response shape, but it references 'same response shape' as ask_pipeworx, and there is no output schema. For invocation purposes, the description is sufficiently complete.

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%: every parameter (q, text, input, prompt, query, question) is already described as a string and most are labeled as aliases for 'question.' The description adds nothing about parameter meaning beyond referencing the same arguments as ask_pipeworx. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the full burden.

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 explicitly identifies this as the beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router, and specifies it has the same 5,908 tools, arguments, and response shape. It clearly differentiates itself from the stable ask_pipeworx and the sibling ask_pipeworx_grounded by emphasizing its experimental routing improvements. The verb and resource are unambiguous, and the 'beta' framing is front and center.

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 states 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing,' giving a direct when-to-use condition. It also explains that results are compared against the stable router for merge decisions, which implies the stable version should be preferred unless new routing behavior is desired. It does not explicitly list exclusions but the context is clear.

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