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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: candidate routing improvements can be live intermittently, the last candidate was retired, and the tool currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It also confirms this is a full working router with no fallback.

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 core beta distinction and provides useful detail about current candidate state and usage. It is somewhat repetitive around the 'matches ask_pipeworx exactly' and 'full working router' points, but every sentence serves the agent's decision-making.

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 universal router with no output schema, the description gives enough context to invoke it correctly: same tools, same arguments, same response shape as ask_pipeworx. It also clarifies current runtime state and the comparison purpose. The response shape is not described directly, but referencing the stable sibling's shape is reasonable given the extensive sibling context.

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%, so the schema already fully documents the six aliases for the single required question parameter. The description only repeats that it uses the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, adding no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already 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 states a clear purpose: a beta version of ask_pipeworx that routes to the same 5,798 tools with identical arguments and response shape. It explicitly differentiates from the stable ask_pipeworx and the grounded sibling by positioning this as the experimental edge with candidate routing improvements.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, since results are compared against the stable router. It also clarifies that no candidate is currently active, so behavior matches ask_pipeworx exactly. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name the stable alternative as the production-safe choice.

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