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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that no candidate routing improvement is currently active, so the tool currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It also clarifies that this is a full working router with no fallback, and that it may have live experimental changes during candidate tests. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs beyond readOnly/idempotent hints.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the beta identity, followed by current status, usage, and fallback behavior. Each sentence contributes useful context, though the exact date and tool count are slightly more detail than strictly necessary. Overall it is appropriately sized and scannable.

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?

The description fully covers the beta caveats, current behavior, relationship to the stable tool, and operational expectations. Since there is no output schema, stating that the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx is important and sufficient. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool 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?

The schema already provides 100% description coverage for all parameters, including aliases for 'question'. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond saying it uses the same arguments as ask_pipeworx. Since the schema carries the load, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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, a universal router with identical tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling and explains that it is the experimental edge. This is specific, action-oriented, and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explains that results are compared against the stable router to inform merges. It names the stable alternative and gives a clear use context. It does not explicitly say when not to use it, but the guidance is still strong.

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