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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description focuses on what they don't cover: beta status, live candidate routing improvements, the current absence of an active candidate, and the fact that results are compared against the stable router. It also states there is no fallback and that this is a full working router. This provides useful context about potential behavioral drift, though it could be slightly more specific about what 'candidate routing improvements' actually change.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place: identity as beta, identical behavior, current state, usage instruction, and experimental nature. It is front-loaded with the core definition and does not waste words on restating the name. Slight redundancy in repeating 'same' multiple times keeps it from being a 5.

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 there is no output schema, the description usefully anchors the response shape by saying it matches ask_pipeworx. The most important contextual aspect for a beta router is the current experimental state, which is clearly disclosed. It is complete enough for correct invocation, though it relies on the agent already knowing what ask_pipeworx does.

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 parameters and aliases already well documented in the input schema (e.g., question, q, text, input). The description only repeats that the tool has 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx without adding any deeper meaning about parameter usage. This satisfies the baseline 3 for a fully documented schema.

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 a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It explicitly distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling by emphasizing the experimental routing improvements. The function is unambiguous: it is a full working router that mirrors ask_pipeworx, just with potentially experimental routing.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing', naming the alternative and the precise selection condition. It also clarifies the current state (no active candidate) so an agent knows it currently matches the stable router exactly. This gives clear when-to-use guidance without leaving the decision to inference.

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