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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds critical behavioral context: candidate routing improvements are enabled live whenever under test, no candidate is currently active (as of 2026-07-26), so behavior currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It also discloses that behavior may change with future candidates, which is beyond what annotations provide.

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 concise, front-loaded with the essential identity ('Beta version of ask_pipeworx'), and every sentence earns its place: relationship to stable, current status, usage condition, and correction of fallback misconception. No filler or repetition exists.

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?

The description covers identity, current operational state, usage guidance, and corrects a key misunderstanding. It references the same response shape as ask_pipeworx but does not independently describe the return payload; however, given the tool delegates to the stable router and there is no output schema, this is a minor gap. Overall, the information needed to invoke it correctly is present.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all six parameters documented as aliases for the required 'question'. The description adds only the pointer that arguments are the same as ask_pipeworx, which is minimal extra meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already 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 identifies the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable sibling by the experimental candidate routing improvements, so an agent can tell what this tool is and how it differs from 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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also clarifies the beta purpose (results compared against the stable router) and corrects a potential misconception by stating it is a full working router, not a fallback. This gives clear selection guidance relative to the stable alternative.

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