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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that candidate routing improvements are enabled live when under test, that no candidate is currently active so behavior matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and that it falls back to nothing because it is a full working router. This gives the agent important experimental-context that annotations cannot express.

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?

Four sentences, all informative: identity, equivalence, experimental status, usage guidance, and fallback behavior. Every sentence earns its place and the most important scoping information comes early.

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 fully covers what an agent needs to call this beta router: same interface as ask_pipeworx, current equivalence, and experimental purpose. Lacking an output schema, it references the stable router's response shape for return semantics, which is adequate though not fully self-contained.

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 coverage is 100% and every parameter is documented as an alias for the question. The description only repeats that it has the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, adding no semantic detail beyond the schema, so a baseline 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 the tool as a beta fork of ask_pipeworx and a universal router over 5,743 tools with the same arguments and response shape. It distinguishes it from the stable sibling by its experimental routing improvements, though it does not use a crisp verb+resource phrasing like 'list calls'.

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?

Explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx 'when you want the newest routing' and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It does not fully spell out when to avoid the beta or prefer ask_pipeworx_grounded, but the primary selection context is clear.

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