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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds valuable context beyond those hints: it is a full working router, currently has no active candidate, behaves identically to ask_pipeworx right now, and may change when candidate improvements are under test. This is meaningful behavioral context about experimental status and parity with the stable router.

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 core identity ('Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router') and then provides essential details about live candidate status, parity, and how results are used. It is somewhat verbose with the specific retirement date, but this detail supports accurate current-state understanding and is not 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 simple one-required-parameter tool with rich annotations, the description is complete enough: it explains the current behavior, the experimental purpose, the relationship to ask_pipeworx, and the lack of fallback. It does not describe return values, but the absence of an output schema is mitigated by stating the response shape matches ask_pipeworx and the router's open-ended nature.

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 has 100% coverage, documenting the single required question parameter and five aliases. The description adds that it accepts the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, which is useful for inheriting known parameter semantics, but it does not go beyond the schema's alias details or provide examples of valid input.

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 version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router, and specifies that it is functionally identical to ask_pipeworx with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape. It differentiates itself from the stable sibling by framing its purpose as testing candidate routing improvements, so an agent can distinguish it from ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and other siblings.

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?

The description explicitly instructs to use the tool exactly like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is desired, and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It gives clear context for when this variant is appropriate, though it does not spell out exclusions such as 'do not use for production stability' or explicitly compare to ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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