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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable transparency beyond that: no candidate is currently active (retired 2026-07-26), it falls back to nothing because it is a full working router, and it is the experimental edge whose results inform merges. This is meaningful behavioral context not available in annotations.

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 well-structured and information-dense. It front-loads the key fact (beta version, identical router), then covers current status, usage, and fallback behavior in a compact block. Every sentence earns its place, no filler.

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?

Given the schema fully documents parameters and annotations cover safety/idempotence, the description adds the necessary situational context: what beta means, current candidate status, how it compares to stable, and that results are used for merging decisions. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% and the description itself does not need to explain parameters; however it reinforces that arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, which is useful. The description correctly notes the schema has aliases including question, q, text, input, query, prompt. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents everything.

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 explicitly identifies this as a beta variant of ask_pipeworx, states it is an identical universal router with the same 5,767 tools and arguments, and clarifies its role as the experimental edge. This clearly distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling without needing to open any schema.

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 explicit usage guidance: use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and it notes when no candidate is active it matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It also explains the comparison purpose against the stable router, giving an agent clear context for when to choose this over alternatives.

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