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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: candidate routing improvements are enabled live when under test, none is currently active, results are compared against the stable router, and the tool has no fallback because it is a fully working router. This clearly communicates the experimental and potentially changing nature of routing behavior.

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 well-structured, front-loading the beta identity and then explaining current behavior, usage, and experimental status. Each sentence contributes useful context, though the 'falls back to nothing' phrasing is slightly redundant with 'this IS a full working router' and could be tightened.

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 routing tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies the exact relationship to ask_pipeworx, confirms the same response shape, explains the current candidate state, and clarifies that it is fully functional rather than a degraded fallback. An agent has enough context to call it correctly and understand what to expect.

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 the 'question' parameter plus aliases q, text, input, query, and prompt. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but with complete schema coverage the 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 names a specific resource (ask_pipeworx_beta), states it is the beta version of ask_pipeworx, and precisely characterizes it as a universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It explicitly distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx by the experimental routing candidate behavior, so an agent can tell them apart without opening 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?

The description explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is desired, and explains that it currently matches ask_pipeworx because no candidate is active. It gives clear context but does not explicitly state when to prefer the stable ask_pipeworx instead, so exclusion guidance is only implied.

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