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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by explaining the beta nature, the current no-candidate state, that it falls back to nothing and is a full working router, and that results are compared against the stable router. No contradiction; it enriches the behavioral context 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?

The description is somewhat long but every sentence earns its place: it states identity, scope, current status, usage instruction, purpose, and safety. The key points about being a beta and current state are front-loaded. There is minimal fluff, and the structure flows logically.

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 tool has a single required parameter and the schema fully describes it. The description explains what the tool does, its relationship to siblings, its current experimental status, and its failure mode. It mentions 'same response shape' which gives a hint about the return without an output schema. For a router tool of this simplicity, it sufficiently covers what an agent needs to invoke it 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 coverage is 100%: the schema thoroughly documents every parameter and their alias relationships. The description adds no new parameter-level information, simply referring to 'same arguments' and 'question'. Given the full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't need to repeat what's in the schema.

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, a universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx and implicitly from ask_pipeworx_grounded by its routing nature, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without inspecting 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 explicitly states 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing', giving a clear when-to-use condition. It also implies a when-not-to-use by referencing the stable router and experimental edge, though it doesn't name explicit exclusions like 'use ask_pipeworx for production'. The guidance is present and actionable.

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