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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: it may have candidate routing improvements live, currently has none active, matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and is a full working router rather than a fallback stub.

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 front-loaded with identity and core function. It includes current status, usage instruction, and a clarifying note about fallback behavior; each part earns its place, though 'use it exactly like ask_pipeworx' appears twice.

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 natural-language router with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool is, current routing state, and relationship to the stable version. It relies on ask_pipeworx for the concrete response shape, which is acceptable given the sibling relationship.

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 parameters are simple aliases for the same natural-language question field. The description contributes only 'same arguments' relative to ask_pipeworx, which is minor and does not lift it above 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?

The description clearly identifies this as the beta variant of ask_pipeworx and defines it as a universal router over 5,724 tools with the same arguments and response shape. It distinguishes the tool from stable siblings by emphasizing candidate routing improvements and the experimental edge.

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 explicitly says to use it like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing and explains results are compared against the stable router. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use scenarios, but the alternative is clearly implied.

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