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

Annotations already convey read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations: it is experimental, may have candidate routing improvements enabled live, currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and falls back to nothing because it is a full working router.

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 key beta-versus-stable distinction and each sentence earns its place. There is minor redundancy between saying it is identical and later saying it matches ask_pipeworx exactly, but overall it remains focused and informative.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, how it relates to the stable router, its current candidate state, that it is fully functional rather than a stub, and that the response shape matches ask_pipeworx. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and all six parameters are documented as aliases for the required question field. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but this is acceptable because the schema already fully explains the parameters and the description confirms it uses the same arguments as ask_pipeworx.

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 the beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes this tool from the stable ask_pipeworx and other siblings by emphasizing the experimental routing improvements and current no-candidate-active state.

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 wanting the newest routing, and notes results are compared against the stable router. It names the alternative indirectly and gives a use condition, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or when to prefer ask_pipeworx over this beta version.

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