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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description goes beyond these by disclosing that candidate routing improvements may be live during tests, that no candidate is currently active as of 2026-07-26, and that it does not fall back to anything—it is a fully working router in its own right. This is strong behavioral context for an experimental tool.

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 four sentences with each contributing relevant context: identity, current experimental state, usage guidance, and fallback behavior. It is slightly dense with repeated references to ask_pipeworx and the same-tools phrasing, but remains focused and well organized.

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 covers what the tool is, its current routing state, how to use it, and that its response shape matches ask_pipeworx. Since there is no output schema, mentioning the response shape is helpful, though a fuller standalone explanation of what ask_pipeworx returns would make it more self-contained.

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 the question parameter plus all aliases. The description adds only that the tool accepts the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, which is useful but does not provide additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already supplies.

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 ask_pipeworx_beta as a beta version of ask_pipeworx and calls it an identical universal router with 5,798 tools, same arguments, and same response shape. It distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx by its experimental routing edge, though it relies somewhat on the reader already understanding what ask_pipeworx 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?

The description explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and mentions that results are compared against the stable router. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, such as for stable/production needs, but the experimental framing makes the intended use case reasonably clear.

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