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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that this is an experimental edge, that candidate routing improvements are enabled live only when under test, that no candidate is currently active, and that it does not fall back to another tool. It also confirms current behavior exactly matches ask_pipeworx, which is valuable operational context that the annotations alone do not provide.

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 identity and scope, then moves to current status, usage guidance, and a clarifying caveat about fallback. Every sentence contributes distinct information, and the length is appropriate for a tool with this level of nuance.

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 the essential facts an agent needs: what the tool is, how it relates to ask_pipeworx, current runtime state, how to invoke it, and the response-shape expectation. Given that no output schema exists, the explicit statement that the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx is sufficient.

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 aliases and the main question parameter already documented clearly. The description adds only that arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, which is mildly useful for reuse but does not add new semantic meaning 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 opens by defining the tool as 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx' and states it is an identical universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It also clarifies that it is a full working router rather than a fallback stub, which clearly 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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing,' and it frames results as being compared against the stable router. It references the alternative ask_pipeworx and explains current behavior, though it does not explicitly state a when-not-to-use scenario such as 'avoid in production-critical contexts.'

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