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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses beta status, that candidate routing improvements are active only when under test, that no candidate is currently active, and that results are compared against the stable router. This is valuable transparency about the tool's experimental and possibly shifting behavior.

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 moderately long but mostly efficient, front-loading the core beta relationship and then giving current status and usage guidance. Some redundancy exists in reiterating that it is a full router, but each sentence contributes to clarifying experimental status and use.

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 simple one-required-parameter tool with rich annotations, the description covers the essential operational context: current behavior, how to invoke it, and its relationship to the stable router. The only notable gap is that the response shape is referenced only as 'same' as ask_pipeworx, with no detail for agents unfamiliar with that sibling.

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%, with the question parameter and its five aliases already fully described. The description adds only that arguments are the same as ask_pipeworx, which is useful context but does not improve parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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, an identical universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It differentiates it from ask_pipeworx by emphasizing experimental routing improvements. However, it relies on knowledge of ask_pipeworx and never states in standalone terms what the router actually does with a question.

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 fully working router, not a fallback. It implies the alternative is the stable ask_pipeworx, but does not provide an explicit when-not-to-use or name other routing variants like ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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