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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is a live experimental edge, candidate routing improvements are enabled only when under test, no candidate is active now, and it does not fall back to anything—it is a full working router. This is far more transparent than typical.

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 slightly long but every sentence carries useful beta-program context: identity, candidate status, comparison against stable, and no-fallback clarification. The opening sentence front-loads the essential purpose. The only minor excess is the emphatic 'this IS a full working router' phrasing.

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 single-required-parameter router with 100% schema coverage and safe annotations, the description is nearly complete. It addresses response shape by reference ('same response shape') and confirms argument compatibility with ask_pipeworx. It does not provide a standalone response-format explanation, which would be more complete given there is no output schema.

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 parameters documented as aliases of 'question.' The description mentions 'same arguments' but adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because 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 ask_pipeworx_beta as a beta version of ask_pipeworx: a universal router with the same 5,752 tools, same arguments, and same response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable sibling by mentioning candidate routing improvements and the experimental edge, so an agent can tell it apart 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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also explains that results are compared against the stable router to decide what merges, and notes that no candidate is currently active so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the condition and contrast with the stable sibling are clear.

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