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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds valuable behavioral context: candidate routing improvements are enabled live only when under test, none are active now, and it currently behaves identically to ask_pipeworx. It also clarifies there is no fallback, reinforcing that it is a real working router.

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 stays focused, with each sentence serving a distinct purpose: definition, current state, usage guidance, and fallback clarification. The details like tool count and retirement date add credibility but could be slightly trimmed without losing meaning.

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 router with a single required question parameter and rich annotations, the description covers the essential context: it is a beta variant, functionally equivalent to ask_pipeworx today, and safe as a read-only operation. It could be more complete by explicitly mentioning how to get stable behavior, but the sibling naming and usage line cover this reasonably.

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 the schema already documents question and its aliases thoroughly. The description adds only that it takes the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, which is useful for cross-referencing but does not meaningfully enrich the parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 the beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape. It explicitly states this is a full working router, not a stub, which distinguishes its purpose from the stable sibling ask_pipeworx.

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 says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, which gives a clear selection condition. It names the stable alternative implicitly by referencing ask_pipeworx, and explains results are compared against the stable router. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, such as when stability is preferred.

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