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

It discloses that candidate routing improvements may be live during testing and notes the current state (no active candidate as of 2026-07-26), so behavior matches ask_pipeworx exactly. This adds valuable context about beta variability that the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive) do not cover, though it could more strongly warn about potential instability during active candidates.

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 front-loaded with the core identity, then the current state, then usage guidance, and each sentence contributes new information. It is compact and avoids redundancy, though slightly longer than necessary due to the detailed current-state explanation.

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-string-input router with rich annotations covering safety (read-only, idempotent), the description provides sufficient context: beta status, identical behavior to the stable router, and the routing-comparison purpose. No output schema is needed since the response shape matches ask_pipeworx, and no critical information for correct invocation is missing.

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 fully documents all six parameters as aliases for the same 'question' string, each with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but since schema coverage is 100% and the input is a single natural-language string, the baseline of 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 states this is the beta version of ask_pipeworx, identical to the stable router with the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape, but with candidate routing improvements. It names the sibling it relates to (ask_pipeworx) and defines its distinct experimental role, making it unambiguous what the tool does.

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 directs 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and clarifies it is a fully functioning router, not a fallback. This gives clear when-to-use guidance and implicitly contrasts with the stable ask_pipeworx, though it does not explicitly state 'do not use for stable behavior' or list exclusions.

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