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

Annotations already convey safety (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds critical runtime behavior beyond those: candidate routing may be live, no candidate is currently active, the tool currently behaves identically to ask_pipeworx, and it never falls back to a non-functional state. This is exactly the kind of stateful nuance an agent needs.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately clarifies the beta relationship. It is slightly verbose with specific dates and repeated caveats, but each sentence contributes useful operational context, so the length is justified.

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 and lack of an output schema, the description covers the essential call reasoning: what it is, its current experimental state, how it compares to the stable router, and that it is fully functional on its own. It does not describe the response shape in detail, but it points to the stable tool's shape, which is a reasonable reference for an agent.

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% and the schema clearly documents 'question' plus its aliases q, text, input, and prompt. The description adds only that arguments are the same as ask_pipeworx, which is confirmatory but not transformative. This meets the baseline for a 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 the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx and a universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape as the stable version. It distinguishes itself from its sibling by emphasizing experimental candidate routing and its current equivalence to ask_pipeworx, which is enough for an agent to understand the resource and role.

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, and explains that results are compared against the stable router. This gives both a positive use condition and a reference alternative, with no ambiguity.

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