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

Annotations already establish readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the bar. The description goes well beyond by revealing this is an experimental live candidate, that no candidate is currently active as of 2026-07-26, and that it 'Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router'. This discloses the operational and safety-relevant behavior without contradicting the annotations.

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, all information-bearing: beta status, equivalence with stable, current state, and no-fallback caveat. The essential context is front-loaded and no sentence is filler.

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 the tool is equivalent to a stable sibling, the description accounts for its experimental nature, argument equivalence, response shape, and usage condition. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by noting the response shape matches ask_pipeworx, though it does not describe that shape directly. Overall, it is complete enough for safe and correct invocation.

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%, with every alias explicitly described and 'question' documented as accepting natural language with aliases. The description only states 'same arguments' and does not add new parameter meaning beyond the schema. Therefore the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 immediately identifies the tool as 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx' and explains it is the same universal router with the same 5,724 tools, arguments, and response shape. This makes the purpose concrete and differentiates it from the stable sibling. It clearly states what it does: an experimental edge of the same routing tool.

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', which gives a clear decision criterion. It also contrasts with the stable router by noting results are compared against it. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer ask_pipeworx or ask_pipeworx_grounded instead, so exclusions are implicit rather than fully spelled out.

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