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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that candidate routing improvements are enabled live when under test, that no candidate is currently active, and that the tool matches ask_pipeworx exactly right now. It also explicitly states 'Falls back to nothing' and clarifies it is a full working router, removing any assumption that beta means degraded or partial. This is rich, honest behavioral 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 front-loaded with the core identity and scoping, then adds current status, usage direction, and fallback behavior in a logical order. It is slightly verbose with specific details like the retirement date and tool count, but every sentence adds useful context. A small amount of redundancy around 'matches exactly' is acceptable given the clarification value.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description says the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx, giving an agent a reference for expected results. It also covers current behavior, experimental status, and lack of fallback, which are the most important operational facts. The only minor gap is not describing the actual response format directly or mentioning the sibling ask_pipeworx_grounded, but the stable-router reference mitigates this.

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%, and the schema already fully documents the six parameters as aliases for the single required 'question' field. The description adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond saying it has the same arguments as ask_pipeworx. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the structured schema carries the parameter documentation 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 this as the beta version of ask_pipeworx and defines it as an identical universal router with the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by emphasizing it is the experimental edge for candidate routing improvements. This gives an agent a concrete, specific picture of what the tool does beyond its name.

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 exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing,' naming the stable alternative and the condition for choosing this tool. It also explains that results are compared against the stable router, which clarifies the evaluation role this beta variant plays. This is strong practical guidance for when to invoke it.

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