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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds meaningful behavioral context: beta status, live candidate routing experiments, the current inactive candidate state with a specific date, exact equivalence to ask_pipeworx right now, and the fact that it is a complete router rather than a partial fallback. This is exactly the kind of operational nuance annotations cannot convey.

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 most important fact ('Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router'), then adds current status, usage direction, and a clarification that it is a full router. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but each sentence contributes distinct information.

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 routing tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers current behavior, equivalence to the stable sibling, when to use it, how results are evaluated, and what it is not (a fallback). An agent has enough context to decide whether to invoke it or use ask_pipeworx instead.

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%: the schema fully documents all five aliases (q, text, input, query, prompt) plus the canonical question parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, so the schema carries the documentation burden and a baseline of 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 this as the beta variant of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape. It does not state the plain-language function ('ask a question') directly, but the title, sibling name, and 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx' make the purpose recoverable.

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 contrasts it with the stable router whose results are compared to decide merges. It also clarifies that no candidate is currently active, so right now it matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and that it is a full working router with no fallback.

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