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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: it explains that candidate routing improvements are only active when under test, that no candidate is currently active, and that the tool does not fall back to anything else—it is a full router. This prevents misuse and sets accurate expectations.

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?

Four dense sentences, each earning its place: definition, current state, usage instruction, and clarification of fallback behavior. The key information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 for correct selection and invocation: it defines the tool, relates it to ask_pipeworx, explains current behavior, provides usage guidance, and notes the response shape. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by stating the response shape is identical to the stable router.

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 all six parameters are clearly documented as aliases for 'question'. The description adds nothing new about parameters beyond saying 'same arguments', but the schema already fully covers semantics, so a baseline score 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 opens with 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx' and immediately defines it as an 'identical universal router' with the same 5,724 tools, arguments, and response shape. This clearly identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from the stable ask_pipeworx by noting experimental routing improvements.

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 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It gives a clear usage context, though it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention the grounded alternative.

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