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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: candidate routing improvements can be live, the tool may differ from stable while a candidate is under test, it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and it is a full working router with no fallback. This materially helps an agent calibrate expectations.

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 a bit long but every sentence earns its place: it defines the tool, clarifies current active-candidate status, gives usage guidance, and resolves potential fallback concerns. It is front-loaded with the beta relationship and maintains clear structure throughout.

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 an experimental variant of a known sibling tool, the description gives enough context to select and invoke it correctly: same schema, same response shape, current equivalence to ask_pipeworx, and the live-experiment caveat. No output schema exists, but referencing the identical response shape of the stable tool compensates reasonably well.

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 coverage is 100%, with every alias and the primary question parameter fully described. The description adds only that the arguments are the same as ask_pipeworx, which is useful but does not go beyond what the input schema already provides.

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 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by its experimental routing candidate behavior, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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 with the stable router used for comparison. The guidance is clear for choosing between beta and stable, though it does not spell out when to prefer the grounded alternative or exclude beta for stability-sensitive use.

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