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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that candidate routing improvements are live only when under test, that no candidate is currently active, and that results are compared against the stable router. It also manages expectations around experimental behavior while confirming operational parity with ask_pipeworx.

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 detailed and well-structured, front-loading the beta relationship and current parity status. It is slightly long, but each clause contributes useful context about experimental risk, routing behavior, and how to use the tool.

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 complex router tool with no output schema, the description provides strong contextual completeness: it explains the beta status, current no-candidate state, exact parity with ask_pipeworx, and intended experimental use. An agent has enough information to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 'question' and all five aliases documented. The description mentions 'same arguments' but adds no substantive parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 defines this as the beta version of ask_pipeworx: a universal router with the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx and names the sibling tool, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also clarifies that this is a full working router, not a fallback. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer the stable ask_pipeworx or ask_pipeworx_grounded, leaving that to inference.

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