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

This goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing that the tool's routing behavior is variable: a candidate routing improvement may be live, or it may not be (currently none is). It also states that it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly and that it falls back to nothing, meaning it is fully functional despite being experimental. This is precisely the kind of contextual behavioral nuance an agent needs.

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 longer than average but nearly every sentence carries signal: beta status, exact equivalence, candidate testing behavior, current inactive state, and how to use it. The date is a minor detail that could be trimmed, but the overall structure is front-loaded and purposeful.

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 tool that is deliberately a byte-for-byte equivalent of ask_pipeworx, the description covers all relevant context: identical behavior, current exact match to stable, experimental variability, and full functionality. It also describes the response shape by reference to ask_pipeworx, which compensates for the lack of an 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?

The schema description coverage is 100% per the context signals, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description says 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which adds cross-tool context but does not provide per-parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the load.

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 the beta variant of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with identical tool coverage, arguments, and response shape. It differentiates it from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling by framing it as the 'experimental edge' with candidate routing improvements. This is a specific verb-plus-resource statement an agent can act on.

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 the agent wants the newest routing, and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It does not fully spell out 'use ask_pipeworx for stable production' as an exclusion, but the beta-vs-stable framing makes the intended selection context clear.

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