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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: this is a full working router, not a fallback/stub; candidate routing improvements may be enabled live; the current experimental status and date of last retirement. It clearly explains what beta means behaviorally without contradicting the annotations.

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 detailed but earns its length by covering the beta distinction, current status, usage instructions, and comparison purpose. It is front-loaded with the core identity ('Beta version of ask_pipeworx') and then efficiently explains behavior. Slightly dense but not wasteful.

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 this is a router tool with no output schema and simple parameters, the description covers the essential context: identical routing behavior, experimental nature, current no-op status, and how results are used. It doesn't need to explain return values heavily since the tool mirrors ask_pipeworx. The only minor gap is not describing the exact response format, but that is inherited from the stable tool and likely known.

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 the primary 'question' parameter fully documented and aliases (q, query, prompt, text, input) listed in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, which aligns with the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 a beta version of ask_pipeworx, explicitly stating it is an identical universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable sibling by its experimental routing candidate status. The verb+resource is clear: use this beta router for routing queries to tools.

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 tells the agent when to use it: exactly like ask_pipeworx when wanting the newest routing, and notes results are compared against the stable router. It also clarifies the current state — no candidate active, so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly — which prevents confusion. It names the sibling alternative implicitly and explains the experimental edge.

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