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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral context: candidate routing improvements are enabled live whenever under test, no candidate is currently active, it matches ask_pipeworx exactly right now, and results feed merge decisions. This goes well beyond the structured annotations and fully discloses the experimental nature and current state.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct information: identity and scope, current candidate state, usage guidance, and fallback clarification. There is minor redundancy between 'identical universal router' and 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly', but the description remains tight and front-loaded with the most important context.

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 router with one required free-text parameter and no output schema, the description explains experimentality, current state, usage, and functional guarantees. It references the response shape as 'same' rather than describing it, which is slightly incomplete without prior knowledge of ask_pipeworx, but sibling context makes this adequate.

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 covers all 6 parameters with 100% description coverage, including the aliases for 'question'. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond saying it has the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, so it adds little beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 states that ask_pipeworx_beta is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, acting as a universal router with the same 5,724 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable sibling by emphasizing its experimental edge and current parity with ask_pipeworx. The role is specific and actionable despite the title not being a conventional verb phrase.

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 clarifies that it is a full working router rather than a fallback. It also explains that results are compared against the stable router to inform merges. It does not explicitly contrast with ask_pipeworx_grounded or state when to prefer the stable router, but the beta/stable distinction is clear enough for most decisions.

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