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

The description adds live behavior beyond the annotations by stating candidate routing improvements are enabled when under test, none is currently active, and it is a full working router with no fallback. Since annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, this extra operational context is valuable and non-contradictory.

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 four sentences are front-loaded with identity, then current state, usage, and caveat. The 2026-07-26 retirement date is arguably more detail than needed, but each sentence contributes useful information and there is no filler.

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 single-question router with fully documented aliases, the description is functionally complete: it defines behavior, current parity with ask_pipeworx, and usage intent. It references but does not describe the response shape, relying on ask_pipeworx's definition, which is acceptable given no output schema exists.

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 all parameters are aliases for the same 'question' string. The description only repeats 'same arguments' and adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 opens by defining the tool as 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router' and specifies it routes across the same 5,884 tools with the same arguments and response shape. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded through its experimental routing 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?

It gives an explicit usage condition: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also explains results are compared with the stable router, implying ask_pipeworx is the stable alternative, though it does not explicitly state when to avoid this beta or prefer ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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