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

Annotations already establish readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. Beyond that, the description adds valuable dynamic context: candidate routing changes are enabled live only when under test, none is currently active, and it matches ask_pipeworx exactly at present. This clarifies the experimental edge without contradicting 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, each carrying meaningful information: beta status, identity with ask_pipeworx, current experimental state, usage guidance, and the 'full working router' caveat. It is slightly dense and could be tightened, but no sentence is wasted.

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 simple natural-language router, the description covers identity, current state, usage, and relationship to the stable sibling. It references the same response shape rather than detailing it, which is reasonable given no output schema and the shared route with ask_pipeworx. Minor gaps remain around examples or a pointer to ask_pipeworx_grounded, but overall it is complete enough.

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% and the schema documents the question parameter and all five aliases. The description adds only that it uses the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, which is cross-tool context but not additional parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly identifies this as the beta variant of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same tool set, arguments, and response shape. It explicitly differentiates from the stable sibling by describing the experimental 'candidate routing improvements' and states it is a full working router, not a fallback.

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?

States when to use it: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also implies the alternative is the stable ask_pipeworx and clarifies results are compared against the stable router. It does not enumerate when not to use it or address ask_pipeworx_grounded, but the context is clear.

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