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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it is a fully working router, experimental only in routing, and may have candidate improvements live under test. This makes the behavioral implications of choosing the beta clear.

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 sentences deliver a dense but useful amount of context: beta status, exact parity, current candidate state, usage instruction, and a clarifying fallback statement. It is slightly long but every sentence earns its place and key information is front-loaded.

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 router with one required string parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it is, how it relates to ask_pipeworx, when to prefer it, and what response shape to expect. The tool is fully self-explanatory for selection and invocation.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, including an explicit description of `question` as a natural-language request that accepts aliases like q, prompt, text, and input. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond referencing ask_pipeworx, so the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 states this is the beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same 5,767 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable sibling by emphasizing the experimental candidate-routing edge.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is desired, and explains results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. It also notes no candidate is active right now, so current behavior matches ask_pipeworx exactly.

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