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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that this is a live experimental router, that no candidate is currently active, that it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and that it does not fall back to nothing. This gives the agent a precise model of current runtime behavior and risk profile.

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 concise yet complete: every sentence adds essential information about beta status, current state, usage guidance, and fallback behavior. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the most important facts.

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 beta router with live experimental changes, the description covers current state, equivalence to the stable tool, how to use it, why it exists, and what happens if no candidate is active. It also references the response shape, compensating for the absent output schema. Nothing critical is missing.

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 the question field and all aliases documented in the input schema. The description adds only that it takes the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, which is useful context but does not materially extend the schema documentation.

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 a beta variant of ask_pipeworx, states it is an identical universal router, and distinguishes it from the stable sibling as the experimental edge. It names the resource (ask_pipeworx) and the specific behavioral difference (candidate routing improvements), so an agent can tell it apart from ask_pipeworx and 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 explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and notes that results are compared against the stable router. It gives clear context and implies the stable alternative, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., when production stability is preferred).

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