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

Annotations already provide readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive hints. The description adds critical behavioral context beyond that: candidate routing improvements may be enabled live, currently no candidate is active so behavior matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and results are compared against the stable router. This is valuable transparency for an experimental tool.

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 slightly verbose but every sentence earns its place by explaining beta status, current active state, usage, and the no-fallback nature. It is front-loaded with the core identity of the tool. The level of detail is justified by the unusual live-candidate behavior.

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 essential operational context: what the tool is, its experimental nature, current behavior, and how to use it. It references the same response shape as ask_pipeworx, which compensates for the absence of an output schema. A small gap is that it does not describe the response shape itself, but the reference to ask_pipeworx makes this recoverable.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents the question parameter and all aliases thoroughly. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond referring to 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx. This meets the baseline for schema-heavy coverage but does not elevate it.

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 this as the beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx by the experimental routing improvements and current inactive candidate state. This is specific and actionable, not a tautology.

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 says to use it 'exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and clarifies that it is a full working router rather than a fallback. It names the stable sibling ask_pipeworx as the comparison point. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer the stable ask_pipeworx over this beta, leaving some inference to the agent.

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