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

The description adds substantial context beyond the read-only, open-world, idempotent annotations: experimental status, live candidate routing improvements, current state as of the last retirement date, comparison against the stable router, and the important caveat that there is no fallback because this is a fully working router.

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 compact and well-organized: it front-loads the core purpose, then states current behavior, usage instruction, and the no-fallback caveat. The repetitive 'same ... same ... same ...' phrasing is slightly wordy, but every sentence contributes essential information for an experimental tool.

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?

The description is largely complete for a read-only routing tool with annotations and full schema coverage. It references the same response shape as ask_pipeworx, which compensates for the lack of an output schema, and it explains the current runtime state. A fully independent description of the response format would make it more complete, but referencing the sibling is reasonable here.

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%, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds the useful meta-information that arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, but it does not explain the individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 variant of ask_pipeworx: a universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape. It also explicitly distinguishes it from stable ask_pipeworx by stating that candidate routing improvements are enabled live during tests.

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?

It gives a direct usage condition: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also clarifies that when no candidate is active it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. However, it does not explicitly mention the grounded sibling variant or state when not to use this tool.

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