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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that candidate routing improvements may be enabled live, that none are currently active, that results are compared against the stable router, and that it falls back to nothing while still being a full working router. This is rich beta-specific behavioral context and does not contradict 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?

Four sentences pack current state, relation to the stable version, usage, and fallback behavior. It is front-loaded and mostly efficient, though the parenthetical about the last candidate's retirement adds specificity but also slight wordiness.

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 an experimental router with no output schema, it covers identity, current equivalence to ask_pipeworx, when to use it, and comparison behavior. It doesn't describe the return payload, but 'same response shape' delegates that to ask_pipeworx, and the absent grounded sibling is not essential to correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, with all six parameters documented as aliases of the single required question parameter. The description only says 'same arguments', adding no extra parameter detail, but the schema already carries the full semantics, 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?

Description identifies ask_pipeworx_beta as a beta variant of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with 5,724 tools and the same arguments/response shape. It clearly separates it from the stable sibling ask_pipeworx and conveys the ask-based purpose via 'use it exactly like ask_pipeworx'.

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?

Explicitly says to use it like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing and notes it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly because no candidate is active. This gives a clear selection condition and names the stable router as the alternative, though it doesn't enumerate when not to use it or discuss ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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