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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds further transparency by disclosing the experimental beta nature, the possibility of live routing changes, the retirement date of the last candidate, and the fact that it is a full working router with no implicit fallback. There is no contradiction with 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?

Every sentence earns its place: identity, current status, usage instruction, and fallback clarification. The description is longer than average, but the added length is fully justified by the nuance of live candidate routing and the need to distinguish it from the stable version.

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 router with no output schema and rich annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly: what it does, how it currently behaves, when to use it, and how it relates to ask_pipeworx. No critical behavioral gap remains.

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 coverage is 100% and the input schema already documents the required question parameter and its aliases. The description adds only that arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, which is useful contextual reassurance but does not meaningfully deepen parameter 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 clearly identifies ask_pipeworx_beta as a beta version of ask_pipeworx, explains that it is an identical universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape, and states the only difference: candidate routing improvements may be enabled. This distinguishes it from the stable sibling without ambiguity.

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 wanting the newest routing, and notes that results are compared against the stable router. It also clarifies current parity because no candidate is active, giving an agent a concrete, actionable selection criterion.

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