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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses live experimental behavior: candidate routing improvements are only enabled while under test, none is active as of 2026-07-26, and current behavior matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It also clarifies that this is a complete working router rather than a degraded fallback, which is valuable context.

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 identity and current status, then moves to usage guidance and a clarifying note. It is slightly repetitive around 'identical/same/exactly' and the parenthetical tool count could be tightened, but every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only experimental router with no output schema, the description covers identity, scope, current candidate state, usage condition, relationship to ask_pipeworx, and assurance that it is fully functional. The phrase 'same response shape' adequately addresses return behavior without needing an output schema.

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 schema already documents the arguments, including the question field and its aliases. The description adds only the general statement 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which is useful but does not provide additional parameter-level 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 opens with 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router (same 5,738 tools, same arguments, same response shape)', which clearly identifies a specific resource, scope, and purpose. It distinguishes itself from the sibling ask_pipeworx by emphasizing 'candidate routing improvements' and '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?

The description gives a concrete usage condition: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and names the stable alternative by describing comparison against it. It does not include an explicit 'do not use when...' exclusion for the stable router, so it falls just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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