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

Annotations already cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints. The description adds behavioral context by revealing that no candidate is currently active, so it behaves identically to ask_pipeworx, and by clarifying that it is a fully working router rather than a fallback stub. This goes beyond the 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 serving a distinct purpose: beta status, current candidate state, usage guidance, and fallback clarification. The information is dense, non-redundant, and front-loaded with the most important fact.

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 tells the agent what the tool is, when to use it, what the current behavior state is, and that it is a complete router. It points to ask_pipeworx for the response shape, mitigating the lack of an output schema. Minor gaps exist around what general questions are appropriate, but the shared schema and clear routing context make this sufficient.

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%, with descriptions for each alias (question, q, text, input, prompt), so the schema already documents the parameters. The description only says 'same arguments' without adding new meaning, so it does not compensate beyond the baseline.

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 states that this is the beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same 5,767 tools, arguments, and response shape. It explicitly names ask_pipeworx and frames this tool as the experimental edge, making it distinguishable from ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded even without inspecting the schema.

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?

The description says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing and notes that results are compared against the stable router. This gives a clear condition for use, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer the stable ask_pipeworx instead, so the 'when-not' is only implied.

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