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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for added value is high. The description adds crucial stateful context: no candidate is currently active, so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly right now, it is a full working router rather than a fallback, and it is the experimental edge.

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?

Three sentences are front-loaded with the beta identity, followed by the routing state, usage instruction, and fallback negation. The parenthetical with tool count and response shape is dense but earned; there is no 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?

It covers the essential operation—ask any question—along with current equivalence to the stable tool and the lack of fallback, which is important because 'beta' could misleadingly imply a shim. The only omission is a detailed response-shape description, though the claim that it matches ask_pipeworx's response shape mitigates this partially despite there being no output schema.

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 covers all 6 parameters with 100% description coverage, including the required question and its aliases. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond 'same arguments', but it does not need to because the schema already fully documents the parameters.

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 identifies this as a beta version of ask_pipeworx and characterizes it as a universal router with the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape. This clearly distinguishes it from the stable sibling ask_pipeworx and from ask_pipeworx_grounded by making its experimental status explicit.

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 states to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx and indicates the condition—when the newest routing is desired—and that results are compared against the stable router. It does not spell out when not to use it, such as when maximum stability is preferred, but the beta-versus-stable framing makes the choice reasonably clear.

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