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

Annotations already declare it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable operational transparency: candidate routing may be live, no candidate is currently active, it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and it is a full working router rather than a fallback. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but well-structured: it establishes identity, current experimental state, usage direction, and a clarifying warning. Each sentence earns its place, and the key behavioral caveat is front-loaded.

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?

It covers what the tool is, its current parity with the stable router, how to invoke it, and its experimental nature. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by 'same response shape,' though a small gap remains for agents without prior knowledge of ask_pipeworx's response format.

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%, with the question parameter and all five aliases fully documented. The description only mentions 'same arguments' without adding param-specific meaning, which matches the baseline expectation when the schema already carries the weight.

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 version of ask_pipeworx: a universal router that accepts questions and routes to the same 5,798 tools with the same arguments and response shape. It also distinguishes it from the stable sibling by emphasizing its experimental 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?

It explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when wanting the newest routing and explains that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. It provides clear context but stops short of an explicit when-not condition, such as choosing the stable router when confirmed/stable behavior is required.

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