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

Adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: it is an experimental beta with candidate routing improvements enabled live, no candidate is currently active, the last was retired on a specific date, and it is a full working router with no fallback. Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, and the description complements them without contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the core beta-versus-stable distinction and includes current-state, usage, and behavioral fallback information in a compact paragraph. It is slightly wordy in the middle ('same 5,798 tools, same arguments, same response shape' is partially redundant), but every sentence contributes decision-relevant detail.

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 simple one-required-parameter tool with rich annotations, the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, current behavior, usage, and the absence of fallback. It does not independently describe the response shape, instead pointing to ask_pipeworx for the same response shape, which is acceptable given the sibling tool exists but leaves some dependency on the agent inspecting ask_pipeworx.

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 and already documents the question parameter plus all five aliases. The description adds only that arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, which is mildly useful but does not meaningfully expand on the schema's parameter 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 ask_pipeworx_beta as the beta version of ask_pipeworx with the same universal routing behavior, same tools, same arguments, and same response shape. It distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx by the candidate routing improvements, though it relies on the agent knowing what ask_pipeworx 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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also explains the current state (no candidate active, matches ask_pipeworx exactly) and frames the experimental edge versus the stable router, giving clear guidance against the sibling alternative.

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