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

The description goes beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations by disclosing that no candidate is currently active, that the tool is a full working router with no fallback, and that it may behave differently when a candidate is under live test. This gives an agent important operational context beyond the safety hints.

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 a bit longer than strictly necessary, but every sentence carries useful context: beta status, identity/equivalence, current candidate state, usage guidance, and fallback behavior. It is front-loaded with the key distinction and remains readable.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description usefully states that the response shape matches ask_pipeworx. It also covers the tool's scope, current live status, and evaluation purpose, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke it. It does not detail return formatting, but that is mitigated by referencing the stable sibling's response shape.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters and aliases. The description mentions 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx and references the required question, but adds no deeper parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 clearly identifies this as a beta version of ask_pipeworx—a universal router with the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape—and differentiates it from the stable ask_pipeworx by its experimental routing status. The purpose is concrete and distinguishable from siblings.

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 says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' exclusion, but the context and candidate-status discussion make the intended usage clear.

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