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

Adds valuable context beyond the annotations by disclosing that this is a live experimental edge, that no candidate is currently active, and that behavior currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It also clarifies that the tool is a full working router rather than a fallback stub. It stops short of describing the response shape in detail, though it points to the stable sibling for that.

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 and information-dense, with each sentence contributing a distinct fact: beta status, identical surface, current inactive candidate, usage instruction, and fallback clarification. There is slight redundancy between 'identical' and 'currently matches exactly', but it is not bloated.

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 single-required-parameter router, the description covers current behavior, relationship to the stable alternative, and safety context through annotations. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by stating that the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx, which an agent can reference.

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%: the required question parameter is documented, and all five aliases explicitly map to it. The description adds no new parameter-level semantics, but none are needed because the schema already conveys that the only meaningful input is a natural-language question.

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?

Clearly identifies the tool as the beta variant of ask_pipeworx, a universal router over 5,743 tools with the same arguments and response shape. It also differentiates itself from stable siblings by calling out experimental routing improvements and the current inactive candidate 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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is desired, and explains that results are compared against the stable router to inform merges. It does not explicitly list exclusion conditions like 'use stable for production', but the intended experimental context is clear.

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