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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes beyond these by disclosing the experimental candidate-routing behavior, that no candidate is currently active, and that the tool 'falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router.' This behavioral context is important because the tool's exact behavior can vary over time without schema changes.

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 appropriately sized: three sentences that lead with the beta definition, then current status, then usage guidance. It is slightly wordy in the final sentence, but the emphasis on being a full working router earns its place because beta variants are often mistaken for incomplete endpoints.

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 as a universal routing variant, the description covers the essential context: what it is, what is different from stable, when it differs, and what behavior to expect right now. It does not describe the output format beyond 'same response shape' as ask_pipeworx, but that reference is adequate when the sibling is available.

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 reported at 100%, so the schema already documents the parameters and alias fields. The description adds only that the tool takes 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx and otherwise does not explain parameter semantics, leaving the schema as the primary source.

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, an identical universal router exposing the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape. This distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling and communicates its experimental role, though it relies on the sibling's meaning for the full user-facing purpose.

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 says to 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing,' which gives the agent a concrete selection condition. It also explains the current status ('no candidate is active right now') and that it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, making the decision to use it versus the stable sibling reasonably clear.

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