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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description needs only to add context beyond that. It does so by explaining that candidate routing changes may be enabled live, that the last candidate was retired, and that there is no fallback router—this is a full working router. This helps an agent understand the live, experimental nature without relying solely on the safety hints.

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 four sentences, each adding meaningful information: the beta relationship, the current candidate status, usage guidance, and the reassurance that it is a full router. It is slightly wordy but not bloated, and key facts like 5,724 tools and the retirement date give useful specificity.

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 tool's complexity as a universal router, the description fully explains its experimental nature, current state, relationship to ask_pipeworx, and how results are used. It also covers the absence of an output schema by noting the same response shape as the stable sibling, making the context complete for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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 already documents the question parameter and all five aliases with 100% coverage. The description adds 'same arguments as ask_pipeworx' but does not provide additional parameter-level detail, so the schema carries the parameter burden. This matches the baseline for fully covered schema.

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 ask_pipeworx_beta as a beta version of ask_pipeworx and a 'universal router' with the same 5,724 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes it from the stable router by emphasizing the experimental 'candidate routing improvements' and the 'experimental edge' purpose. This gives an agent a precise understanding of the tool's role and differentiation from its 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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also notes that no candidate is currently active, so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It stops short of explicitly saying when not to use it or specifying stable vs. experimental trade-offs, but the guidance is clear enough for a correct selection.

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