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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the candidate routing improvements can be active live, no candidate is currently active, and the tool currently behaves exactly like ask_pipeworx. It also clarifies that this is a full working router, not a stub or fallback proxy.

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 somewhat longer than strictly necessary but every sentence carries meaningful information: beta status, identity with ask_pipeworx, current candidate state, usage instruction, and fallback clarification. The key behavioral information is front-loaded and the prose is structured logically.

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 tool with no output schema, the description compensates by stating the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx and that the routing behavior may change when a candidate is under test. It covers current state, relationship to the stable router, and the absence of fallback. The only minor gap is that it relies on the sibling ask_pipeworx to explain the actual output format.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, only noting 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which is useful context but does not replace or enrich the schema for the 6 parameters. The schema already documents aliases like q, text, and input for the required question parameter.

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 this as a beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable sibling by explicitly calling out the experimental routing improvements and current inactive state.

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.' It names the stable router as the comparison point and explains that results are compared to decide merges. It does not explicitly state a when-not-to-use scenario, but the conditional 'when you want the newest routing' provides sufficient context.

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