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

Beyond the readOnly, idempotent, and destructive annotations, the description discloses that this variant runs live candidate routing improvements when one is under test and currently has none active. This is valuable non-obvious behavior: the tool may change behavior over time relative to the stable router, and the description also clarifies it does not fall back to anything.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: identity/equivalence, current experimental state, usage instruction, and a final clarification against fallback assumptions. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler.

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 read-only, idempotent routing tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the needed context: beta status, current equivalence to stable, when to prefer it, and confirmation that it is a complete router. Referencing the same response shape as ask_pipeworx is sufficient given that sibling is present in the same tool suite.

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 coverage is 100%, with the question parameter and all aliases (q, text, input, query, prompt) already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond noting that the arguments are the same as ask_pipeworx, which does not exceed the baseline for a fully documented 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 the tool as 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx' and an 'identical universal router (same 5,743 tools, same arguments, same response shape)', making its action and scope unambiguous. It also distinguishes it from the stable sibling by naming ask_pipeworx and framing this as the experimental edge with candidate routing improvements.

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 explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, giving a clear when-to-use condition. It also states the current no-candidate state means it matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and clarifies it is a full working router rather than a fallback stub.

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