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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it is experimental, candidate routing improvements are enabled live only when under test, no candidate is active as of a specific date, and it is a full working router with no fallback. This is useful behavioral information that annotations alone would not convey.

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?

Four sentences each convey distinct information: identity and parity, current experimental state, usage guidance, and fallback behavior. The description is moderately long but not bloated, and the key point—beta variant with candidate routing—is front-loaded. The repetition of ask_pipeworx is slightly redundant but does not hurt clarity.

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 beta alias of a complex universal router, the description covers identity, functional parity, current availability, and how to use it. It references ask_pipeworx for expected arguments and response shape, which is reasonable given the sibling tool exists. It does not explain what makes a good question or what routing entails, but with no output schema and a stable sibling available, this is adequate for an agent to call it correctly.

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 input schema fully documents all parameters, including aliases and the natural-language question field. The description adds only that arguments match ask_pipeworx, without detailing any parameter semantics. This is the baseline 3 case where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 5,767 tools, arguments, and response shape. This differentiates it from the stable ask_pipeworx and the sibling ask_pipeworx_grounded at a high level. The actual user-facing purpose ('asking questions through a router') is only implicit and relies on prior knowledge of ask_pipeworx.

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, and explains that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. This gives clear context for when the beta variant is appropriate. It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but the experimental framing and comparison to the stable router imply that ask_pipeworx is the production choice.

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