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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, it reveals important runtime behavior: candidate improvements are active only under test, the last candidate was retired, current behavior exactly matches ask_pipeworx, and results feed comparison against the stable router. This is substantial context beyond what annotations convey.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core identity ('Beta version of ask_pipeworx'). Each sentence earns its place: identity/equivalence, current state, usage direction, and no-fallback clarification.

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 gives enough context for an agent to decide whether to invoke this beta router: what it routes, current equivalence to stable, and the experimental purpose. It does not spell out the actual response shape, but it references ask_pipeworx's response shape and the stable sibling carries the details, leaving only minor ambiguity.

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 has 100% description coverage: q/text/input are aliases and question is described with its alias list. The description adds the high-level statement that this tool takes the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, but it does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 variant of ask_pipeworx: a universal router covering the same 5,767 tools with the same arguments and response shape. It explicitly differentiates from the stable sibling by its candidate routing improvements, so an agent can tell it apart from ask_pipeworx 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?

The description states when to use it ('when you want the newest routing'), says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx, and notes that currently no candidate is active so it matches the stable router. It also clarifies that it does not fall back to another tool because it is a complete working router.

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