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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the experimental nature, the live candidate-testing behavior, the current inactive-candidate state, and that it does not fall back to another tool. This adds meaningful context about how the tool may behave differently over time.

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 front-loaded with the beta identity and efficiently explains the experimental purpose, current state, and usage directive. The final sentence about falling back to nothing is slightly redundant but reinforces that it is a full router.

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 references the same response shape as ask_pipeworx but does not specify that shape, and there is no output schema. It provides enough context to call the tool correctly in terms of input and routing behavior, but return-value details are left to inference from the sibling tool.

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 the schema itself documents the question parameter and all aliases. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable since the schema fully covers semantics.

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 variant of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same 5,936 tools and response shape. It distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx by its experimental routing improvements, though the core purpose is somewhat implied rather than stated as a direct action verb.

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 says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when wanting the newest routing, and notes that results are compared against the stable router. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the experimental framing and current match to stable give adequate guidance.

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