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

The annotations declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds valuable context beyond that: it is an experimental edge, candidates may be live or retired, a specific retirement date is given, and it falls back to nothing—it is still a full working router. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: what the beta is, current candidate state, usage instruction, and no-fallback clarification. The core fact is front-loaded and the rest is tightly organized.

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?

The description covers the operational essentials: identical behavior to ask_pipeworx, same response shape, no fallback, and current status. It does not spell out the response shape in detail, but references the stable sibling's identical contract, which is reasonable for a router tool with a single required question parameter.

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 'question' and its aliases at 100% coverage, so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The description adds only that arguments are the same as ask_pipeworx, which is useful but not necessary for invoking the tool correctly.

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 states the tool is the beta version of ask_pipeworx: a universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape. It differentiates itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by noting experimental routing improvements, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 the newest routing is desired, and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It also clarifies the current state: no candidate is active, so it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. This gives clear conditional guidance and identifies the stable sibling as the comparison point.

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