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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals important behavior: candidate routing improvements are enabled live when under test, no candidate is active right now, and there is no fallback — it is a full working router. This adds meaningful context about the tool's experimental nature and current state without contradicting the 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core definition and then provides current-state and usage guidance. Each sentence contributes useful context, though the wording around 'Falls back to nothing' is slightly ambiguous and could be tightened. Overall it is appropriately sized for a beta router with dynamic behavior.

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 covers what the tool is, how it differs from the stable version, its current active state, and how to use it. Since there is no output schema, mentioning 'same response shape' as ask_pipeworx helps, though it does not spell out the actual response format. The reference to ask_pipeworx provides enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, and all parameters are documented as aliases for the question field. The description adds no parameter-level details beyond saying 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, so it neither improves nor harms the schema-provided semantics. 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 clearly identifies this as a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes the tool from the stable ask_pipeworx by emphasizing its experimental routing edge, though it does not explicitly contrast it with 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 explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when wanting the newest routing, and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It also notes that no candidate is currently active, so it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It gives practical usage context but does not state clear exclusions or when to prefer ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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