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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: it is an experimental edge, candidate routing may or may not be active, it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and it is a fully working router with no fallback degradation.

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?

Each sentence earns its place: identity, experimental status, usage guidance, and a clarifying note that this is a full working router. The key scoping fact 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx' is front-loaded, and the explanation is dense but not bloated.

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 tool with full schema coverage and all necessary behavioral context disclosed, this description is complete. It even addresses response shape by stating it matches ask_pipeworx, which is important given there is no output schema.

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 aliases (q, text, input, query, prompt) documented as equivalent to the required 'question' parameter. The description says 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx but adds no new parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 this as the beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same tool set, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable sibling by its experimental routing improvements, though it relies somewhat on the reader 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 says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when wanting the newest routing, and explains that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. It also clarifies the current status (no candidate active), so an agent knows when the behavior is identical to ask_pipeworx.

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