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

Beyond the readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive annotations, the description discloses that candidate routing improvements may be enabled live, that no candidate is currently active as of a specific date, and that this is a full working router rather than a fallback. This 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 without being bloated. It front-loads the core identity, then explains the current state, usage guidance, and the absence of a fallback, with each sentence earning its place.

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 an experimental routing tool: it covers identity, behavior relative to the stable version, current status, usage direction, and response parity. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit statement that the response shape matches ask_pipeworx.

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 the question parameter and all aliases already documented. The description only says 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which reinforces parity but does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 differentiates from the stable ask_pipeworx by noting candidate routing improvements and its experimental edge, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings.

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 like ask_pipeworx when wanting the newest routing, and it names the stable router as the comparison baseline. It does not provide an explicit 'when not to use' statement, but the experimental-versus-stable distinction makes the intended usage clear.

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