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

It discloses live experimental behavior, current state, comparison against the stable router, and the fact that it does not fall back to anything else. This goes well beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations and clarifies that the tool is fully functional despite being experimental.

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 clear and front-loaded with the beta nature and current equivalence to ask_pipeworx. It is slightly verbose in restating equivalence, but each sentence adds meaningful context about behavior, usage, and current experimental state.

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, how to use it, when to prefer it, its current runtime state, and its relationship to the stable router. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by stating it shares the same response shape as ask_pipeworx, so an agent has enough context to invoke it 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?

The input schema already documents all six parameters and aliases with 100% coverage, so the description need not repeat them. It only adds 'same arguments' as a reference to ask_pipeworx, which is useful context but not additional semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 a beta variant of ask_pipeworx with the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape, plus candidate routing improvements. It distinguishes itself from its sibling ask_pipeworx and states it is a full working router rather than a stub or fallback.

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 explains that results are compared against the stable router. It also provides the current no-candidate state, letting an agent know it currently behaves identically to ask_pipeworx.

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