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

Discloses the beta/live-candidate status, that no candidate is currently active, and that behavior may change while still matching ask_pipeworx right now. This goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints and explains the evaluation context.

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?

Four brisk sentences, front-loaded with the beta identity and the stable-router comparison. The date and tool count are slightly incidental but support the transparency claim rather than bloating it.

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 read-only router relying on one required question parameter and no output schema, the description covers current behavior, identity, and relationship to ask_pipeworx. It does not spell out the response shape itself, but explicitly points to ask_pipeworx's response shape.

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%, so the schema already documents the six parameters and required question. The description only says arguments are the same as ask_pipeworx, adding no new parameter-level 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?

Immediately identifies the tool as the beta variant of ask_pipeworx and an identical universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It names its stable sibling, so an agent can disambiguate it without opening the schema.

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 tells the agent to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is wanted, and notes there is no fallback because it is a full working router. It does not enumerate when not to use it, but the contrast with the stable router is clear.

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