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

Adds important context beyond annotations: it is a beta/experimental edge, may have candidate routing improvements enabled live, and results are compared against stable to decide merges. It also clarifies that it is a full working router and not a fallback stub, and that current behavior exactly matches ask_pipeworx. No contradiction with readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations.

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 tightly packed sentences front-load the core identity ('Beta version of ask_pipeworx') and give necessary context without filler. The date and the clarification that it is a full working router are purposeful additions that prevent misuse.

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 beta variant of a known sibling, the description covers current state, experimental behavior, relationship to stable, and response shape equivalence. There is no output schema, but referencing the same response shape as ask_pipeworx is sufficient for an agent already familiar with the stable tool.

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 parameters described as aliases for 'question', so the schema already communicates the input model. Description only says 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which adds little beyond the schema; however, it does not need to compensate because the alias relationships are explicit.

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?

Description explicitly identifies it as the beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same 5,908 tools, arguments, and response shape, and differentiates it from the stable ask_pipeworx by its experimental routing improvements. This makes its function and identity unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and notes that results are compared against the stable router, giving clear when-to-use guidance and naming the stable alternative. It also notes that no candidate is currently active, so it currently matches stable behavior, which helps the agent decide.

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