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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses beta status, that candidate routing improvements are only live when under test, that no candidate is currently active, that behavior currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and that this is a fully working router with no fallback. This is rich, honest behavioral context with no contradiction.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: what the tool is, its current state, usage guidance, and fallback clarification. It is front-loaded with the beta-version and universal-router facts and contains 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?

With no output schema, the description relies on saying the response shape matches ask_pipeworx, which is acceptable given ask_pipeworx is a sibling tool. The core routing behavior, current state, and experimental context are fully documented, but a standalone description of the return format would make it complete without requiring knowledge of the sibling.

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 100%, with the schema documenting `question` and the five aliases `q`, `text`, `input`, `query`, and `prompt`. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond noting that arguments match ask_pipeworx, so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 ask_pipeworx_beta as a beta version of ask_pipeworx: a universal router with the same 5,908 tools, same arguments, and same response shape. It distinguishes the tool from its stable sibling by characterizing it as the experimental edge and explicitly stating current no-candidate parity.

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 to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when wanting the newest routing, and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It does not fully spell out when to prefer the stable router over the beta or address ask_pipeworx_grounded, but the core usage context is clear.

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