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

Annotations already signal a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive tool. The description adds the beta-specific behavioral context: candidate routing improvements are live under test, none is active as of 2026-07-26, and the tool falls back to nothing but is still a full working router.

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?

Most sentences earn their place: beta status, current parity with stable, usage instruction, and the fallback clarification. The date and tool-count details add context but could be trimmed without losing the core guidance.

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 an experimental router with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: arguments match ask_pipeworx, response shape matches, live-test behavior, and the current state. The only implicit part is when to prefer the stable router over this one, but the 'newest routing' instruction covers that.

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?

All six parameters are aliases for 'question' and the schema already documents each alias and the primary field at 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, and none is needed at this coverage level.

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 opens by positioning the tool as the beta version of ask_pipeworx and immediately narrows the resource: a universal router with the same arguments and response shape. It distinguishes from the stable sibling ask_pipeworx by experimental status and even specifies no candidate is active, so behavior currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly.

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 this exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and frames results as being compared against the stable router. This gives a clear selection condition and names the alternative, though it does not spell out an explicit 'use stable ask_pipeworx when...' exclusion.

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