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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the beta nature, that no candidate is currently active, that the tool currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and that results are compared against the stable router. It also clarifies that this is a full working router and does not fall back to anything, preempting a common beta-tool concern.

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 three sentences and every sentence contributes essential information: identity, current behavior, usage guidance, and fallback clarification. The most important differentiator, beta status, is front-loaded.

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 beta router with no output schema, the description covers behavior, current state, and usage adequately. It references the same response shape as ask_pipeworx rather than detailing it, but since ask_pipeworx is a sibling tool, this is a reasonable dependency; still, a standalone tool might need a bit more about the return shape.

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 already documents all parameters with 100% coverage, including aliases for the question parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond saying it shares the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, so 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 identifies the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx: a universal router using the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable sibling by noting candidate routing improvements and its experimental edge, so an agent can tell exactly what it 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 says to use it like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is desired, which gives a clear usage context. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or mention alternatives like ask_pipeworx_grounded, but the stable-vs-beta distinction is strongly implied.

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