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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses time-varying behavior: candidate routing improvements are enabled live whenever under test, and no candidate is active right now, so the tool currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It also explicitly says it falls back to nothing, which prevents the common beta-tool misconception. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 most important identity statement, 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx.' It contains some operational detail, such as the tool count and the retirement date, which is useful for transparency but slightly exceeds what is strictly needed for invocation. Overall it is compact and every sentence contributes.

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 is complete for a router tool: it explains what the tool is, how to use it, what its current behavior is, and that its response shape matches ask_pipeworx. The input schema covers all parameters, the annotations cover safety, and the description covers the beta-specific nuances an agent would need to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents question plus all five aliases (q, text, input, query, prompt). The description adds only the high-level statement that arguments are the same as ask_pipeworx, but no field-level semantic detail beyond the schema. This is the appropriate baseline for a fully documented schema.

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 defines the tool as the beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same tool set, arguments, and response shape. It explicitly contrasts this with the stable router and says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx, which differentiates it from the main sibling. It is specific about the resource and what the tool does, even if it does not discuss ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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 usage guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also clarifies that results are compared against the stable router, which implies when the stable route is preferable. It further prevents misuse by stating there is no fallback and that this is a fully working router.

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