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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing the experimental status, the live candidate-routing mechanism, the current no-candidate state, and the fact that it is still a full working router rather than a thin fallback. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs for a beta tool.

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, with the idntifying statement front-loaded and every sentence earning its place: status, current state, usage, and clarification. The date and parenthetical are slightly detailed but add needed specificity for a beta tool.

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 beta router that changes behavior based on live candidate tests, the description covers current state, relationship to stable ask_pipeworx, usage condition, and safety via annotations. No output schema exists, but 'same response shape' plus annotations provides enough to invoke correctly.

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% and the schema already documents all six parameters, including aliases for question. The description only adds that arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, which is compatibility context but does not deepen param semantic meaning.

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 identifies the tool as a beta variant of ask_pipeworx, a universal router using the same 5,767 tools, arguments, and response shape. It differentiates it from the stable router by noting it is the experimental edge, though it relies on ask_pipeworx to fully define what the tool does.

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 like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It also clarifies that no candidate is currently active, so it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, giving the agent a concrete selection condition.

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