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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds important context beyond annotations: candidate routing improvements are enabled live when under test, no candidate is currently active so it matches stable, and it falls back to nothing because it is a full working router. This clarifies the experimental nature without overclaiming.

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 compact at four sentences and front-loads the beta relationship and identical-router nature. The parenthetical date adds specific transparency but slightly increases length; otherwise there is little waste.

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?

It covers the current experimental state, usage equivalence, and fallback behavior, and the schema fully documents the single meaningful parameter. The only notable gap is that the response shape is described only by reference to ask_pipeworx rather than stated in this tool's own definition.

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 every parameter documented as an alias for question. The description only says 'same arguments' and does not add parameter meaning, but the schema carries the burden, 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 identifies it as the beta variant of ask_pipeworx, states it is an identical universal router with the same 5,908 tools, arguments, and response shape, and distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx and sibling routers by its experimental role. This gives an agent a concrete, specific purpose and separates it from the stable alternative.

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?

It explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when the agent wants the newest routing, and notes results are compared against the stable router. The guidance makes the selection condition clear and names the stable ask_pipeworx as the reference alternative.

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