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

Annotations only mark it idempotent and non-destructive; the description adds the live experimental nature, that no candidate is active (as of 2026-07-26), and that it currently behaves identically to ask_pipeworx but may change when candidates are tested. It also clarifies it is a full working router, not a fallback stub.

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 appropriately detailed and front-loads the core fact that this is the beta version of ask_pipeworx with identical behavior. The specific retirement date is useful context but adds length; overall there is minimal waste.

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 covers the tool's current state, experimental purpose, fallback behavior, and relationship to ask_pipeworx. Since no output schema is provided, pointing to the same response shape as ask_pipeworx provides sufficient reference, though it assumes familiarity with that sibling's return format.

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%, so the schema already documents that 'question' is required with 'q', 'text', and 'input' as aliases. The description adds no further parameter-level detail beyond saying arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, 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?

Clearly identifies the tool as a beta variant of ask_pipeworx, an identical universal router over the same 5,908 tools with the same arguments and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable sibling by the experimental routing updates currently under test.

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 instructs to use it like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is desired, and notes that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. This gives a clear condition of use and contrasts with the stable alternative, referencing how to choose between the two.

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