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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds valuable live-behavior context: routing improvements are enabled only when a candidate is under test, no candidate is active as of 2026-07-26, and it falls back to nothing. This is clear and does not contradict 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with beta status, then state, usage, and a clarifying fallback. Every sentence adds distinct information and there is no filler.

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 alias whose schema and annotations are rich, the description is nearly complete: it gives current experimental status, exact parity with ask_pipeworx, and full functional promise. The only minor gap is that the exact response format is delegated to 'same response shape' rather than described in detail.

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?

All six parameters are documented in the schema with 100% description coverage (question plus five aliases). The description only references 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, but no further parameter detail is needed because the schema already carries the full meaning.

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 names the stable sibling and defines this as 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx', a universal router with 5,798 tools, same arguments and response shape. It distinguishes this from ask_pipeworx by the experimental routing improvements while clarifying it is a working router, not a stub.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use it 'exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and explains the current parity with the stable router. It does not give an explicit 'when not to use' or mention grounded alternatives, so it is clear but not fully complete.

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