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

Beyond the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive annotations, the description discloses the experimental nature, the live candidate mechanism, the current inactive state, and the absence of fallback. It explicitly states this is a full working router, not a stub, which is important behavioral context for an agent.

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 front-loaded with the core identity and uses four sentences, each carrying relevant information about current state, usage, and fallback behavior. It is slightly repetitive in emphasizing 'exactly like ask_pipeworx' and 'same arguments', but remains efficient and readable.

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 covers the tool's current operational status, its relationship to the stable router, and its response shape. It lacks an explicit statement about return value details, but since it references the same response shape as ask_pipeworx, an agent can infer behavior from the sibling 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?

The schema already documents all six parameters with full coverage, including aliases, so the description adds little parameter-specific meaning. Saying 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx is mildly useful but does not compensate for or add to the schema's complete documentation.

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 a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router over 5,743 tools, and distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx by noting candidate routing improvements. It also explicitly states it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives an explicit usage directive: use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and explains that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. The main gap is that it does not explicitly state when to prefer the stable ask_pipeworx instead, though that is strongly implied.

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