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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it is a full working router with no fallback, it may have experimental routing candidates live, and currently no candidate is active so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly. This is exactly the kind of live experimental context an agent needs before invoking it.

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 dense but not bloated: it front-loads the beta identity and equivalence to ask_pipeworx, then covers current candidate state, usage instruction, and fallback behavior. Every sentence earns its place and addresses a likely agent question about whether this experimental variant is safe and fully functional.

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?

Together with the complete schema and annotations, the description covers what the tool is, when to use it, how it may differ from stable behavior, and what to expect in terms of response shape via the ask_pipeworx equivalence. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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 input schema already documents all six parameters and aliases at 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description only says 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which adds no per-parameter semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the 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 states that this is a beta version of ask_pipeworx: a universal router over the same 5,767 tools with the same arguments and response shape. It also distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by explaining that candidate routing improvements may be enabled live. An agent can tell exactly what resource and function this tool exposes.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and results are compared against the stable router. It does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use cases or alternatives beyond the stable ask_pipeworx, but the beta-versus-stable contrast makes the intended context clear.

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