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

Beyond the readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it is a full working router with no fallback, candidate routing improvements are live only when one is under test, and the last candidate was retired. This clarifies what 'beta' actually means operationally and prevents an agent from assuming it is a stub or degraded version.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: identity and relationship to ask_pipeworx, current experimental status, usage instruction, and reassurance that there is no fallback. The information is front-loaded and the beta caveat is stated before the usage guidance. No filler or repetition.

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 is complete enough for selection and invocation: it explains the tool's relationship to ask_pipeworx, its current parity, experimental nature, and that it is a full working router. It does not independently describe the response format, relying on 'same response shape' and reference to ask_pipeworx, but the sibling tool is listed and the schema and annotations cover safety and parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, with all six parameters documented as aliases for the free-text question. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond saying it takes the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, which is useful context but not necessary given the schema already fully documents the single meaningful parameter.

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 identifies this as the beta version of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It explicitly names the sibling it relates to and distinguishes itself by the experimental routing improvements. This gives an agent a precise understanding of what the tool is without needing to infer from the name alone.

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 you want the newest routing, and it frames the stable router as the basis for comparison. It also warns that it is the experimental edge and that no candidate is active right now. It stops short of stating explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route appropriately.

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