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

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds high-value context: it is a full working router with no fallback, experimental candidates are enabled live only when under test, and currently no candidate is active so behavior matches ask_pipeworx exactly. This is transparent about the beta nature and potential behavior changes.

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 earning its place: beta identity, current experimental state, usage guidance, and explicit no-fallback guarantee. The most decision-relevant info (beta, matches stable currently) is front-loaded, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

The description is nearly complete for invocation: purpose, relationship to stable router, current active state, and fallback behavior are all covered. The minor gap is that while it says 'same response shape' as ask_pipeworx, it does not describe what that shape is; however, given the sibling tool and 100% parameter schema coverage, an agent has enough to proceed.

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 aliases fully documented in the input schema. The description says 'same arguments' but adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 clearly identifies this as the beta variant of ask_pipeworx: a universal router with the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape, but with experimental routing improvements. It explicitly names the stable sibling and explains the experimental positioning, making it easy to distinguish from ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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 provides clear usage context: use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and results are compared against the stable router. It implies the stable ask_pipeworx is the alternative for non-experimental use, though it does not state an explicit 'when not to use' condition beyond the current status of matching ask_pipeworx.

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