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

The description goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by explaining the dynamic nature of the beta router: candidate routing improvements may be live, results are compared against the stable router, and it is a full working router with no fallback. This provides useful behavioral context not present in 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 somewhat repetitive with phrases like 'exactly like ask_pipeworx' and 'full working router', but it is well structured and front-loaded with the most important information: beta status, identical behavior, and when to use it.

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 single-question router with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what the tool is, how it relates to the stable version, when to use it, and what response shape to expect. No critical information is missing.

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 already provides 100% coverage by documenting all six parameters as aliases for 'question'. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so it meets the baseline but does not improve on the schema.

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 states this is the beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same tool set, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling by explicitly calling out experimental routing improvements and its current behavior when no candidate is active.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and notes that results are compared against the stable router. It also clarifies the current state (no active candidate) so an agent knows it currently behaves identically to ask_pipeworx.

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