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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that this is an experimental edge, that candidate routing improvements are enabled live, and that it is a fully working router that does not fall back to anything. The current status of no active candidate is also transparently stated, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnly/idempotent hints.

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 information-dense without being bloated. Each sentence adds distinct value: beta definition, current identical state, usage instruction, and a clarification that it is a full working router. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by explicitly stating that the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx and that arguments are the same. Combined with full schema coverage and the experimental-status explanation, an agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 every alias is already documented. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond stating that arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, so it does not raise the score above the baseline.

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 the tool as a beta variant of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape. It also distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx by noting the experimental routing improvements, so an agent can understand exactly what this tool is and how it relates to siblings.

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 explicitly states to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is desired, and notes that results are compared against the stable router. It gives clear situational context, including that no candidate is active right now so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly, which tells the agent when and how to use it.

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