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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it is a live experimental edge, no candidate is currently active, it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and it 'falls back to nothing' so it is a full working router rather than a wrapper. This gives the agent a clear picture of the tool's current and expected behavior.

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 information-dense and front-loads the beta identity and equivalence to ask_pipeworx. Every sentence contributes key context, though the specific retirement date and the repeated emphasis that it is a full working router add minor length without much additional actionability.

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 single-required-question router with strong annotations and 100% schema coverage, the description covers identity, current state, usage condition, and experimental risk. It relies on ask_pipeworx for response shape details via 'same response shape,' which is acceptable given the sibling context, but it does not independently describe the return 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%, with all six parameters documented as aliases for the single question parameter. The description adds no parameter-level semantic detail beyond saying it uses the same arguments as ask_pipeworx. This matches the baseline of 3 because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 the tool as the beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape. It explicitly distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling by positioning it as the experimental routing variant. The core resource and relationship to the stable tool are unambiguous.

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 says to use the tool exactly like ask_pipeworx when the user wants the newest routing, and it mentions results are compared against the stable router. The alternative ask_pipeworx is named, but there is no explicit 'do not use when you need stable behavior' exclusion; it is only implied by 'experimental edge'.

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