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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that candidate routing improvements can be enabled live, that no candidate is currently active, that the tool currently behaves exactly like ask_pipeworx, and that it does not fall back to another tool. This gives the agent a strong, honest model of experimental 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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: it defines the tool, explains the experimental status, states current behavior, gives usage direction, and clarifies the fallback misconception. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's complexity as a 5,798-tool router and the lack of an output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains current state, relationship to the stable router, response shape parity, and that the tool is fully functional. No critical context for correct invocation appears to be missing.

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 coverage is 100% and every parameter is already documented as an alias for question, so the schema fully explains the parameters. The description only says 'same arguments' and adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, which matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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, a universal router that handles the same 5,798 tools with the same arguments and response shape. It also distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx by emphasizing the experimental routing improvements and current no-op status.

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 gives explicit guidance: use it like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and results are compared against the stable router. It clearly names the stable alternative and the condition for choosing this beta tool, though it does not explicitly state when to avoid it or contrast it with ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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