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

The description is highly transparent about current behavior: no candidate is active, it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and it is a full working router despite being experimental. This matches the readOnly/idempotent annotations and adds valuable status context.

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 somewhat repetitive—mentioning 'exactly' and 'full working router' twice—but it remains concise, well-structured, and covers purpose, usage, and current status in a few sentences.

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 provides sufficient context: it explains beta status, current inactive candidate, relationship to ask_pipeworx, response shape expectations, and evaluation purpose. No critical behavioral context is missing even without an output schema.

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 schema already covers all six parameters with 100% coverage and describes the question field and its aliases. The description adds little beyond noting arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states this is the beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router, and tells the agent to use it when wanting the newest routing. This distinguishes it from the stable sibling ask_pipeworx.

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 results are compared against the stable router. It does not explicitly say when not to use it, but the beta/stable distinction strongly implies the alternative.

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