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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description builds on this by revealing the experimental nature: candidate routing improvements are enabled live when under test, and no candidate is active right now so behavior currently matches ask_pipeworx. It also clarifies fallback semantics ('Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router'), removing ambiguity about reliability. No contradictions with 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 four dense sentences with no filler, front-loading the key fact that this is a beta variant of ask_pipeworx. The specific current status and fallback behavior each add necessary context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential invocation context: identical to ask_pipeworx, same response shape, and current experimental status. It even covers the failure mode ('Falls back to nothing') and the evaluation purpose. An agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 provides descriptions for all parameters, but they are merely aliases for 'question' (e.g., 'Alias for question.'), so coverage is high but shallow. The description adds no detail about the question parameter, only 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx. Given the 100% schema coverage baseline, this is adequate but not enhanced.

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 identifies this as a beta version of ask_pipeworx with the same universal-routing scope, explicitly restating identical 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the sibling stable ask_pipeworx by describing it as the experimental edge with candidate routing improvements. This gives an agent a precise picture of what the tool does and how it differs.

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 states 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing,' giving a clear condition for selection. It also contrasts results with the stable router to decide what merges, implying the stable tool is for non-experimental use. It does not explicitly spell out when-not-to-use or mention the grounded sibling, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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