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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that this is a live beta with candidate routing improvements, that no candidate is currently active, and that it does not fall back to anything else—it is a fully working router. This is rich, honest behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: it states the beta identity first, then the equivalence to ask_pipeworx, the current experimental state, usage instruction, and a clarifying note about fallback. Every sentence carries distinct useful information with no padding.

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 that this is a beta variant of a known sibling tool, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It explains current behavior, how it relates to the stable router, what happens during candidate testing, and where to route the user when the newest routing is desired. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by stating the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx.

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 parameters documented as aliases for 'question.' The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond saying the tool takes the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, which is acceptable since the schema already carries the full burden of parameter documentation.

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 the beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape, plus candidate routing improvements. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling by framing it as the experimental edge.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also explains the relationship to the stable router and the comparison process, giving an agent clear guidance on selecting this over siblings.

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