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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description discloses that this is an experimental edge with live routing improvements, that results are compared against the stable router, and that it is a full working router rather than a fallback stub. This provides important behavioral context annotations do not cover.

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 compact and information-dense, with the core identity and behavioral caveat front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: what it is, what differs, current status, when to use it, and what it does not do. No filler or redundancy.

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 largely complete for a router with schema-covered parameters and rich annotations. It states parity with ask_pipeworx in arguments and response shape, which is enough given the sibling context, though the absence of an output schema means some response details are only available by referencing 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?

The schema fully documents all six parameters as aliases for question, so description-level parameter detail is unnecessary. The description adds 'same arguments' as a point of parity with ask_pipeworx, but it does not enrich meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 tool as a beta fork of ask_pipeworx, describing it as an identical universal router with live candidate routing improvements. It explicitly differentiates from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling and explains what makes it distinct. This is a specific, non-tautological statement of purpose.

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?

The description gives explicit usage guidance: use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing. It also clarifies that no candidate is active right now, so behavior currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, reducing ambiguity about when selection matters.

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