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

Annotations already signal a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it is a live experimental edge, may have candidate routing changes enabled during tests, currently matches the stable router exactly, and falls back to nothing—it is a fully working router. This is transparent about the beta nature without contradicting 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 a few dense sentences with the key distinction (beta version, currently identical) front-loaded. Some details like the exact retirement date and tool count add texture but are not strictly necessary, keeping it slightly above average but not maximally tight.

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 usefully states that the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx. Combined with the safety annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has enough to call it correctly. It does not spell out routing failure behavior beyond 'falls back to nothing,' but the meaning is clear.

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 schema already documents all six parameters with descriptions and aliases at 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but it doesn't need to since the schema carries the full burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 this as a beta variant of ask_pipeworx, a universal router that accepts a natural-language question and routes to the same 5,721 tools. It explicitly positions itself relative to the stable sibling, so an agent understands what the tool does and how it differs.

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 says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is desired, and explains that results are compared against the stable router to decide what merges. It also clarifies there is no active candidate right now, so behavior is currently identical to the stable version. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and names the alternative.

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