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

Adds significant context beyond the readOnly/idempotent hints: the tool is a live experimental edge whose behavior toggles when a candidate is under test, currently exactly matches ask_pipeworx since no candidate is active, and it is a full working router rather than a thin fallback wrapper. This is exactly the behavioral nuance an agent needs.

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?

Five sentences, each earning its place: identity, current live state, usage instruction, evaluation purpose, and non-fallthrough clarification. It is slightly long but dense with non-redundant 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?

Complete for this tool type. All parameters are documented in the schema, annotations cover the safety profile, the response shape is referenced as identical to ask_pipeworx, and the description covers the beta state, routing behavior, and sibling relationship. No critical gap remains.

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 six parameters documented as aliases (q, text, input, prompt, query for question). The description adds nothing param-specific, but the baseline 3 applies because the schema already carries the full burden.

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?

States a specific role: a beta variant of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router with the same 5,908 tools, arguments, and response shape. It explicitly differentiates itself from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling by its experimental routing improvements, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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?

Gives clear context: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and explains results are compared against the stable router. It names the alternative and the selecting condition, though it never explicitly states the when-not case (prefer the stable ask_pipeworx for stability).

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