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

Beyond the readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent annotations, the description discloses that candidate routing improvements are enabled live, that no candidate is currently active, and that this is a fully working router with no fallback. This is substantive context about the experimental state and current behavior, and it does not contradict the 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 front-loaded with the beta identity and current state, then gives usage and fallback clarity. It is slightly verbose and the phrase 'Falls back to nothing' is awkward, but every part contributes essential selection and invocation context.

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 read-only, idempotent tool with an alias-heavy schema, the description covers purpose, current state, usage, and relationship to the stable router. It defers response shape to 'same response shape' as ask_pipeworx, which is acceptable because that sibling is listed, but it is not fully self-contained without referencing that sibling.

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 all six parameters and their alias relationship to 'question' are already documented. The description adds only that arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, which reinforces but does not meaningfully extend the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States clearly that this is the beta variant of ask_pipeworx: an identical universal router with the same 5,798 tools, same arguments, and same response shape. It also distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by its experimental routing status, so an agent can tell it apart immediately.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also notes the current state (no candidate active) and how results are compared against the stable router. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this beta or when to prefer ask_pipeworx_grounded, so exclusions remain implicit.

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