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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains that routing may change when a candidate is under test, that no candidate is currently active, and that this is a full working router rather than a fallback. This is useful, honest disclosure of the beta behavior, and it does not contradict the 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 compact and front-loaded: identity, current state, usage guidance, and the reassurance that this is a full router. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of structured fields.

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 router with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context to select and invoke it: what it is, what behavior to expect, how to use it, and what differentiates it from the stable router. It relies on the ask_pipeworx sibling for some details, but that is reasonable given the explicit reference.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the parameters and aliases, so the description does not need to restate them. The description only adds 'same arguments as ask_pipeworx', which is a useful reference but not new semantic detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 5,738 tools, arguments, and response shape, differing only through experimental routing candidates. It distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx and other siblings by explaining what is experimental about it, so an agent knows exactly 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?

The description gives explicit usage context: use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and results are compared against the stable router. It does not state an explicit 'when not to use' condition, but the intended selection criterion is clear.

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