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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: it is an experimental edge, candidate routing improvements may go live during a test, results are compared against the stable router, and no candidate is currently active. This fully discloses the operational 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 front-loaded with the core definition and then provides necessary context about experimental status, current behavior, and usage. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but each sentence contributes useful decision-making information without significant redundancy.

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 complex universal router with no output schema, the description covers the key invocation context: relationship to ask_pipeworx, current candidate state, full functionality, and routing comparison behavior. It relies on 'same response shape as ask_pipeworx' rather than describing the response itself, which is acceptable given the sibling tool exists but leaves a slight dependency.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage, documenting 'question' plus five aliases (q, text, input, query, prompt), so the description does not need to restate parameter meaning. Its only parameter-related contribution is 'same arguments as ask_pipeworx,' which is a helpful cross-reference but not substantive semantic enrichment.

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 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx' and explains it is an 'identical universal router' with the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape. It explicitly contrasts it with the stable ask_pipeworx sibling, making the tool's purpose and scope unambiguous.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also clarifies the current status—no active candidate, so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly—and states it is a fully working router, not a fallback stub. This leaves no doubt about when to select it over the stable sibling.

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