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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable state context: no candidate is currently active, it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and it is a full working router with no fallback. This goes beyond the structured hints and gives the agent an accurate current-behavior picture.

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 beta relationship and includes useful state details, but it is slightly verbose with specifics like the retired date and 5,743-tool count. Each sentence does contribute to setting expectations, and there is no redundant restating of schema information.

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 simple one-required-parameter tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly: purpose, relationship to ask_pipeworx, current routing state, and response-shape parity. It does not enumerate possible return contents, but no output schema exists and the reference to the sibling response shape covers the main need.

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 for the question field, so the schema carries the full parameter-semantic burden. The description adds only that the tool uses the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, which is useful context but not detailed parameter semantics. A baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 opens by defining the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx with the same universal router, same 5,743 tools, same arguments, and same response shape, which clearly identifies what it does and how it differs from its stable sibling. The mention of candidate routing improvements and the experimental edge distinguishes it from ask_pipeworx without requiring schema inspection.

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 like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and notes that results are compared against the stable router. It names the primary comparison tool but does not discuss exclusions or when to prefer the other sibling ask_pipeworx_grounded, so it is clear but not fully exhaustive.

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