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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that no candidate is currently active, making the tool currently identical to the stable version, and states the experimental-edge nature. It also explicitly says it does not fall back to anything, removing a common false assumption.

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 four sentences are front-loaded with the core purpose and each additional sentence earns its place: current beta status, equivalence to the stable version, usage instruction, and fallback clarification. The parenthetical specifics (5,908 tools, retirement date) are concrete without bloat.

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 that the output schema is absent and the tool is a beta variant of a sibling, the description is complete: it defines the tool's scope, its current exact behavior, how to invoke it relative to ask_pipeworx, and what distinguishes it. An agent has enough information to select and call it correctly.

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 all six parameters with 100% coverage of their alias behavior, so the description does not need to add parameter detail. It adds only the useful note that arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, which supports the 'use exactly like' guidance without extending the schema semantics.

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 a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape, and explains that it differs only when routing candidates are under test. This distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling without ambiguity.

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 tells the agent to use this exactly like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is desired, and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It also clarifies there is no fallback behavior, so the agent knows this is a complete router rather than a supplementary helper.

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