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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description reveals the live candidate-routing mechanism, current status (no active candidate as of 2026-07-26), that it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and that it does not fall back to another tool. No contradiction with annotations.

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, each carrying a distinct fact: beta identity, candidate mechanism, no active candidate, usage instruction and fallback clarification. The date and tool count add precision; the parenthetical-heavy first sentence is the only minor structuring flaw.

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 nearly complete: it covers behavior, current state, safety via annotations, and the relationship to ask_pipeworx. It does not spell out the actual response shape beyond 'same response shape' and does not contrast with ask_pipeworx_grounded, but those are minor given the explicit pointer to ask_pipeworx.

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 six parameters are already documented. The description only adds 'same arguments' by reference to ask_pipeworx, which is useful transfer context but adds no field-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 first sentence identifies this as a beta version of ask_pipeworx and defines it as a universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape, with experimental routing improvements possibly live. This clearly distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling and labels it as 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 states exactly when to use it ('when you want the newest routing') and says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx, naming that sibling directly. It also removes a likely misselection by clarifying that it is a full working router rather than a thin fallback wrapper.

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