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

The description adds rich behavioral context beyond the annotations: live candidate routing improvements may be enabled during testing, no candidate is currently active, the last was retired on a specific date, results are compared against the stable router, and it is a full working router rather than a stub. This transparently discloses the experimental nature and current equivalence to ask_pipeworx.

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-structured: it leads with the purpose, follows with the current live state, then usage guidance, and closes with a clear fallback clarification. Every sentence conveys necessary information about identity, status, or behavior, with no filler or repetition.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description provides enough context by stating that the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx and that the tool is a complete universal router. It covers current experimental status, usage intent, and aliases via schema. It could go slightly further by describing what the response contains, but references to the stable sibling and full router make it sufficient for correct invocation.

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 already documents all six parameters with 100% description coverage, including the canonical 'question' field and all aliases. The description only says 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which adds no semantic value beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without requiring additional compensation.

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 the tool as the beta version of ask_pipeworx: an identical universal router over 5,724 tools with the same arguments and response shape. It explicitly distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx by noting candidate routing improvements and current inactivity. This is a specific, actionable definition that an agent can reliably differentiate from the main sibling.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and notes that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. It also clarifies that there is no fallback and this is a fully working router. However, it does not explicitly say when to avoid this tool or how to choose between it and ask_pipeworx_grounded, leaving some comparative guidance implicit.

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