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

Adds substantial context beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations: the experimental live-candidate mechanism, the current inactive state with a precise retirement date (2026-07-26), the evaluation behavior (results compared against the stable router to decide merges), and the explicit no-fallback guarantee. This is exactly the stateful nuance an agent needs to safely invoke a beta tool.

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?

Three sentences that front-load identity, then move to current state, then usage and fallback clarification. Every sentence earns its place; the specific retirement date is precise operational information, not padding. No redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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?

Covers identity, operational state, usage, evaluation behavior, and relationship to the stable router — everything needed to invoke it correctly. The response shape is deferred via 'same response shape' to ask_pipeworx rather than described inline; given there is no output schema, that handoff is reasonable, though a brief description of the return format would make it fully self-contained.

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%; the schema fully documents the required question parameter and its five aliases (q, text, input, query, prompt). The description only adds that arguments match ask_pipeworx, which is cross-tool context rather than new parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 precisely identifies the tool as the beta variant of ask_pipeworx, a universal router spanning 5,798 tools with identical arguments and response shape. It names the resource, the scope, and the delta from the stable sibling, which lets an agent distinguish it from ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded even without opening their schemas.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('when you want the newest routing'), directs the agent to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx, and names the stable router as the comparison baseline. It clearly rules out the fallback misconception by insisting this is a full working router. It implies the exclusion (use stable ask_pipeworx when not seeking newest routing) but does not spell out explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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