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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: candidate routing improvements are live only under test, none are active right now, and this is a full working router rather than a fallback wrapper. The 'falls back to nothing' clarification prevents a common misconception.

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 front-loaded with the beta identity and key equivalence statement, then adds active-candidate status, usage guidance, and a no-fallback clarification. Every sentence earns its place, and the specific details like tool count and retirement date support the current-state claim without bloating the text.

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 single required question parameter, absence of an output schema, and the many sibling routing tools, the description is complete enough for correct use. It explains the current behavior, how to invoke it (exactly like ask_pipeworx), and that it returns the same response shape as the stable router, which is precisely what an agent needs.

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 all six parameters documented as question and its aliases. The description adds no per-parameter detail beyond referencing 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, so it correctly relies on the schema rather than duplicating it.

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 over 5,724 tools with the same arguments and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable sibling by emphasizing the experimental routing edge and explicitly naming the stable alternative, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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 gives explicit direction: use exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, with results compared against the stable router. This implies the alternative (ask_pipeworx) and the selection condition, and it further clarifies that no candidate is currently active so behavior matches the stable version today.

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