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

Annotations already mark readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds live dynamic behavior: candidate routing improvements are enabled only when under test, none is active as of the stated date, and the tool remains a full router rather than a fallback. It also notes results are compared with the stable router, which is useful non-obvious context.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core beta-vs-stable relationship in the first sentence. Later sentences add useful status and usage nuance, though the 'fallback to nothing' clarification and exact tool count are slightly beyond the minimum.

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 no-output-schema tool, it covers the essential operational facts: same response shape as ask_pipeworx, current behavior is identical, when candidate changes are active, and how to invoke it. The combination of annotations and description leaves no critical ambiguity for an agent deciding to call it.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all six parameters documented as aliases for the required question string. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema fully covers the aliasing behavior, so baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool as a beta variant of ask_pipeworx and characterizes it as an identical universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape, which distinguishes it from the stable sibling. However, it assumes familiarity with ask_pipeworx rather than explicitly stating the underlying 'answer via routing' function itself.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to use this tool exactly like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is desired, and clarifies the current matching state. It doesn't spell out when to choose stable ask_pipeworx over this beta, but the condition ('when you want the newest routing') plus the candidate-testing context gives enough guidance.

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