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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations: experimental status, live candidate testing, the retiring of the last candidate on 2026-07-26, and the fact that it does not fall back to anything. This is useful behavioral transparency for an agent deciding whether to trust results.

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 essential 'beta version of ask_pipeworx' identity and immediately clarifies the universal router nature. It is somewhat long, but each sentence adds meaningful context about experimental status, current equivalence, and usage intent. Slightly verbose but not bloated.

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?

While there is no output schema, the description references the same response shape as ask_pipeworx, which is a known sibling. It covers the required question parameter usage, experimental caveats, and current behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, though a fully self-contained response description would be marginally better.

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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters and aliases. The description only says 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic load; the description does not need to compensate.

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/experimental version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router over 5,743 tools. It specifies the resource, the verb implied by 'router', and explicitly distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx, making sibling differentiation immediate.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: use exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing. It also states the current behavioral equivalence, that candidates are compared against the stable router, and confirms it is a full working router rather than a fallback. This gives an agent clear decision criteria.

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