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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that this is an experimental beta, that candidate routing improvements are only enabled live while under test, that no candidate is currently active, and that results are compared against the stable router. It also explicitly says the tool has no fallback behavior, which is valuable behavioral context not available from 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 slightly longer than strictly necessary, but every sentence adds relevant context: beta status, equivalence to ask_pipeworx, current candidate state, usage condition, and no-fallback guarantee. The most important distinguishing facts are front-loaded.

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 the simple schema, strong annotations, and the presence of ask_pipeworx as a sibling reference point, the description is largely complete. It does not describe the response format, but it explicitly states the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx, which is sufficient context for an agent familiar with the sibling tool.

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%, and the schema already documents that all six parameters are aliases for the required 'question' natural-language input. The description doesn't add parameter-level details, but it doesn't need to since the schema fully covers parameter meaning.

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 ask_pipeworx_beta as a universal router variant of ask_pipeworx with identical arguments and response shape, and explicitly differentiates it from the stable sibling by noting it carries experimental routing improvements. The phrase 'this IS a full working router' removes any ambiguity about whether it is merely a stub or fallback.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and notes that it currently matches ask_pipeworx because no candidate is active. It does not enumerate all alternatives or state a hard exclusion case, but the comparison to the stable router makes the intended selection condition clear.

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