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

The annotations already signal readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable state information: no routing candidate is currently active, so it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and it does not fall back to a stub but is a full working router. This clarifies the dynamic, experimental nature and prevents an agent from assuming it is incomplete or deprecated.

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 longer than average but every sentence carries useful information about the beta status, current state, usage, and fallback behavior. It is front-loaded with the key 'beta version of ask_pipeworx' phrase and avoids unnecessary fluff. The specific date of the last candidate retirement is a minor bonus that adds credibility.

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 that the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx, but because there is no output schema, an agent that cannot access ask_pipeworx's own description would not know what the response looks like. It also does not describe the routing behavior or what 'candidate improvements' might change. Given that this is a universal router with a sibling stable version, referencing ask_pipeworx helps, but the absence of any return-format context is a notable gap.

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 'question.' The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond saying it accepts the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, which is redundant with the schema. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 this as the beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape, and explicitly marks it as the experimental edge. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by noting candidate routing improvements may be enabled, though the core purpose is somewhat implicit: it is a question-routing tool. The description communicates enough for an agent to understand what it is and how it relates to the stable sibling.

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 'exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and explains that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. This gives clear context for when to choose this beta variant. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, such as 'use ask_pipeworx for production stability,' but that exclusion is strongly implied by the experimental framing.

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