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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: candidate routing improvements are enabled live only when under test, none are active now, and it is a full working router rather than a fallback-only wrapper. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 longer than minimal, but each sentence contributes useful context: beta status, current candidate state, usage direction, and clarification that it is a full router. The core purpose is front-loaded and the additional detail is justified for an experimental variant.

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 annotations, full parameter schema, and reference to ask_pipeworx for the response shape, the description gives enough context for selection and invocation. It could be more complete by describing the actual response shape, but pointing to the same response shape as ask_pipeworx is sufficient given the sibling context.

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 schema already documents the question parameter and all aliases. The description mentions 'same arguments' but adds no new semantic detail about parameters beyond what the input schema provides, so 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 clearly identifies this as a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same 5,908 tools, same arguments, and same response shape. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by being the experimental routing edge, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without opening schemas.

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 gives direct usage guidance: use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. It also notes that no candidate is active right now, so it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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