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

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context about the beta state, current absence of an active candidate, and the fact that it is a fully working router with no fallback—this goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded, with each sentence contributing useful information: what the tool is, its current runtime state, when to use it, and how it relates to the stable router. There is no meaningful 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?

Given the schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, current behavior, and comparison to the stable router. The only minor gap is that it references 'same response shape' without describing that shape, which is somewhat important since no output schema is provided. Still, the reference to the stable tool is enough for most invocation contexts.

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% coverage and thoroughly documents the question parameter plus all five aliases. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond saying arguments are the same as ask_pipeworx, so the schema carries the weight.

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 variant of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router over 5,724 tools with the same arguments and response shape. It names the stable sibling ask_pipeworx and explicitly distinguishes the beta's experimental routing edge, so an agent can tell it apart from related tools.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also contrasts with the stable router and explains that results are compared to decide what merges, which is clear usage context.

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