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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the experimental nature, that routing candidates may be active, that results are compared against the stable router, and that no fallback occurs—this is a full working router. It also states the last candidate was retired on 2026-07-26, providing concrete current-state context. This is rich behavioral transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded, opening with 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx' and the key identical/univeral routing facts. Each sentence adds necessary context: identity, current candidate state, usage instruction, and no-fallback clarification. There is minimal redundancy and no wasted words.

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 complete for a single-question router. It confirms identical arguments and response shape, explains the experimental comparison workflow, and reassures that this is a fully functional router. Since there is no output schema, the explicit 'same response shape' reference compensates effectively.

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 input schema already covers all six parameters with 100% description coverage, explicitly documenting question and its aliases q, text, input, query, prompt. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness. Baseline 3 applies here.

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 states it is a beta version of ask_pipeworx: an identical universal router with the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the stable sibling by labeling the experimental edge and noting that routing improvements may be active. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 names the alternative stable router and explains that results are compared against it, making the selection criteria clear. The note that no candidate is currently active further clarifies the expected behavior.

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