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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that candidate routing improvements may be enabled live, that no candidate is currently active, and that the tool currently behaves identically to ask_pipeworx. It also clarifies that it is a real, working router rather than a fallback or stub, which is valuable behavioral context for an experimental tool.

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 information-dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds current state and usage guidance. It could be slightly tighter, as 'matches ask_pipeworx exactly' and 'use it exactly like ask_pipeworx' convey overlapping ideas, but each sentence contributes distinct operational 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?

This is a beta router with high operational nuance, and the description covers the essential context: what it is, how it relates to the stable version, whether a candidate is active, and how results are evaluated. It even addresses the likely concern that a beta tool might be a stub by affirming it is fully functional. With no output schema, referencing ask_pipeworx's response shape 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%, and the schema already documents the single question parameter and its five aliases. The description adds only the meta-information that the arguments match ask_pipeworx, providing no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score 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 identifies the tool as the beta version of ask_pipeworx, a full universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape. It explicitly differentiates it from the stable ask_pipeworx by its experimental routing improvements, so an agent can distinguish it from the primary sibling.

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 usage direction: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and notes that results are compared against the stable router. It names the stable alternative and provides a selection condition, though it stops short of explicitly stating when not to use it, such as when stable production behavior is required.

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