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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable transparency about the currently inactive candidate, the experimental nature, and that there is no fallback—this is a fully working router. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 three sentences and packs relevant context: beta status, equivalence to ask_pipeworx, current candidate status, usage guidance, and experimental nature. It is concise but slightly verbose with the parenthetical dates and tool counts.

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 single-question input and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context by referencing the same response shape as ask_pipeworx and explaining the comparison behavior. It does not detail the response format, but that is implied by the stable-tool reference.

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?

The schema description already covers all six parameters, including the alias relationships. The tool description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what is in the schema, so it stays at the baseline.

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 the ask_pipeworx universal router, explicitly distinguishing it from the stable ask_pipeworx and the grounded variant. It names the resource, the verb, and what makes this variant unique (candidate routing improvements).

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 guidance: use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and notes that results are compared against the stable router. It could more clearly contrast with ask_pipeworx_grounded, but the primary usage condition is stated.

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