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

The annotations already provide the read-only, open-world, and idempotent profile, and the description adds meaningful mutable behavior: candidate routing improvements may be enabled live, none are active right now, and the last one was retired on a specific date. This gives an agent realistic expectations about experimental variability and confirms there is no hidden fallback.

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 compact but dense: every sentence contributes either identity, current behavior, usage direction, or a critical clarification about fallback. It is front-loaded with the core identity and immediately orients the agent.

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 what the tool is, when to use it, its experimental nature, current state, and lack of fallback. The only minor gap is that the response contract is stated only as 'same response shape' rather than concretely described, and there is no output schema to fill in that 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 fully documented in the schema as natural-language question text or aliases, so description-level parameter guidance is not necessary. The description only says 'same arguments as ask_pipeworx' without adding semantics beyond what the schema already provides, which matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 immediately identifies the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx and specifies that it is an identical universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape. This clearly communicates the function and distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling via the experimental edge.

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 explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and it explains that results are compared against the stable router. It also clarifies that no candidate is currently active, so the tool currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and that it does not fall back to anything because it is a full working router.

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