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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds critical context: it is an experimental beta with candidate routing improvements enabled live, no candidate is currently active, and it matches ask_pipeworx exactly right now. It also clarifies this is a full working router, not a fallback stub.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds useful context about the beta state and current behavior, though the triple restatement of 'same arguments, same response shape' is slightly redundant.

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 everything needed: what it is, how it differs from the stable sibling, when to use it, the current inactive candidate state, and the response shape. An agent can confidently 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the parameter aliases. The description restates that arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx but adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 states the tool is the beta version of ask_pipeworx with the same universal router, same 5,743 tools, same arguments, and same response shape. This clearly identifies the verb ('ask') and resource ('pipeworx beta') and differentiates it from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling.

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 you want the newest routing, and notes that results are compared against the stable router. It implies the stable alternative for non-experimental use, though it doesn't explicitly state 'don't use this for stable requests'.

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