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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: no candidate is currently active, so it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and it is a full working router rather than a fallback stub. This clarifies current runtime behavior and experimental status beyond the readOnly/idempotent hints.

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 four sentences, front-loads the beta identity and relationship to ask_pipeworx, and adds useful context about current candidate state and comparison purpose. The retire date is slightly specific but not bloated, and no sentence is redundant.

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-parameter router with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it is, how it behaves right now, how to use it, and how it relates to the stable sibling. It could specify return format more explicitly, but 'same response shape' compensates by referencing the known stable tool.

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 coverage is 100% and all six parameters are fully documented as aliases for the question field. The description says 'same arguments' but does not need to repeat parameter details since the input schema already provides complete semantics.

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 ask_pipeworx_beta as the beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router over the same 5,767 tools with the same arguments and response shape. This is a specific verb-resource statement that distinguishes it from the stable sibling while explaining what the tool actually does.

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 wanting the newest routing, and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It gives a clear selection criterion but does not explicitly state when not to use it, such as 'use ask_pipeworx for stable production needs.'

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