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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses the live candidate-routing behavior, the current inactive candidate state with a retirement date, that there is no fallback, and that it is a full working router. This adds substantial behavioral context beyond the structured 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 longer than minimal but each sentence earns its place: beta identity, current candidate state, usage instruction, and non-fallback guarantee. It is front-loaded with the tool's identity and avoids 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 beta router with no output schema, the description conveys what it does, how it relates to the stable ask_pipeworx, and the current live state. It relies on the agent knowing ask_pipeworx for the actual response shape and argument details, but that is a reasonable reference given the identical-interface statement.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description only adds that arguments are the same as ask_pipeworx, which supports usage but does not add per-parameter meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 version of ask_pipeworx, states that it is an identical universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape, and distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx and grounded variants. This gives an agent a specific, non-tautological purpose.

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 instructs the agent to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is desired, and explains that results are compared against the stable router for merge decisions. This is clear when-to-use guidance and differentiates it from the stable sibling.

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