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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those: candidate routing improvements can be active, none are currently active, and this is a full working router rather than a fallback stub. This clarifies the experimental nature and current 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?

Four sentences and every sentence carries weight: relationship to ask_pipeworx, current candidate state, usage guidance, and an explicit statement that this is a complete working router. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema or annotations.

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 an experimental router, the description covers the essential operational facts: it is fully functional, currently equivalent to ask_pipeworx, has the same arguments and response shape, and should be used when the newest routing is desired. The schema handles parameters, so an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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%, and the schema already documents 'question' plus its aliases with helpful descriptions. The description only says 'same arguments' without adding new parameter-level semantics, so it stays at the baseline.

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?

Clearly identifies itself as the beta/candidate variant of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same 5,767 tools, arguments, and response shape, and notes it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. The 'newest routing' phrasing conveys its function, though it relies heavily on comparison to ask_pipeworx rather than a standalone verb+object statement.

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 tells the agent to use it 'exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and contrasts it against the stable router whose results decide merges. It names the sibling and provides a clear selection condition, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer the stable router instead.

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