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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that routing improvements may be actively under test, that no candidate is currently active (as of 2026-07-26), and that it currently behaves identically to ask_pipeworx. It also explains that its outputs are compared with the stable router to decide merges, which is useful behavioral context. It does not detail response format or errors, but the main experimental volatility is transparent.

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 longer than minimal but every sentence adds relevant value: identity, experimental state, current parity, usage directive, and non-fallback clarification. The structure is logical, though the specific retirement date is a detail that may age.

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 question-routing tool with six alias parameters and rich annotations, the description covers what matters for selection and invocation: experimental status, parity with stable version, and when to use it. It mentions 'same response shape' without specifying what that shape is, and there is no output schema, but the intended behavior is clear enough for a beta variant of a known sibling.

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 described as an alias for 'question' with the main field naming accepted aliases, so the schema already carries full parameter semantics. The tool description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. Baseline 3 applies.

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 a beta variant of ask_pipeworx, a universal router over the same 5,767 tools with identical arguments and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable sibling by its experimental candidate-routing behavior, so an agent can tell it apart from ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded. It relies somewhat on the reader knowing what ask_pipeworx does, but the core purpose is stated.

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 an explicit usage condition: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing', naming the stable ask_pipeworx as the comparison/alternative. It also clarifies a common misconception with 'Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router', which is an explicit exclusion about when not to treat it as a stub.

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