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

The description adds useful context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it explains that no candidate is currently active, that the tool is fully functional rather than a stub, and that it may be used for experimental routing comparisons. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 slightly wordy and includes a couple of emphatic asides ('Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router'), but it remains focused and communicates the key facts about beta status, current parity, and intended use without excessive padding.

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 covers the tool's current state, relationship to the stable ask_pipeworx, and its role in routing experiments. It references the same response shape as ask_pipeworx, which provides sufficient context given the absence of an output schema and the tool's simple single-question input.

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 schema fully documents all six parameters, all aliases for the single required 'question' field, with 100% coverage. The description repeats the alias information but adds no additional constraints, format details, or behavioral guidance beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Clearly identifies itself as a beta variant of ask_pipeworx, describes it as an identical universal router with candidate routing improvements, and distinguishes it from the stable sibling by mentioning 'newest routing'. The resource and purpose are specific.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when wanting the newest routing and notes that results are compared against the stable router. It could more clearly list when not to use it versus other siblings like ask_pipeworx_grounded, but the primary guidance is present.

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