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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds valuable behavior: no active candidate is under test right now, so it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly; it is a full working router with no fallback. This clarifies the experimental nature and current state without contradicting 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?

The description is a single dense paragraph that front-loads the beta relationship and includes necessary context about current experiment state and fallback behavior. It is slightly verbose with parentheticals, but every clause contributes useful information.

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 variant tool with rich annotations and a well-covered schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, how it differs from the stable router, and its current active state. It doesn't spell out return values in detail, but 'same response shape as ask_pipeworx' is sufficient in the sibling context.

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 all parameter descriptions identifying aliases for question. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics — it only says 'same arguments' — so the schema already carries the burden and the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states that this is a beta version of ask_pipeworx — an identical universal router over the same 5,908 tools, arguments, and response shape — with candidate routing improvements. It clearly distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx by framing it as the experimental edge, so an agent can tell what it does and how it differs.

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 you want the newest routing, and mentions that results are compared against the stable router. This gives clear use context, though it stops short of enumerating when not to use the grounded or other sibling variants.

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