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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, and the description adds valuable context about the live experimental nature: candidate routing improvements are enabled when under test, no candidate is currently active, and results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. It also clarifies that this is not a fallback but a fully functional router.

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 compact and information-dense, covering purpose, current status, usage, and behavioral expectations without excessive padding. The opening sentence front-loads the key relationship to ask_pipeworx, while later sentences add essential experimental context.

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 an experimental router with only one required parameter and high schema coverage, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the beta status, current equivalence to ask_pipeworx, and expected response shape via reference to ask_pipeworx. It could be more self-contained if it described the response format directly, but the sibling reference and clear usage guidance cover the main needs.

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?

All six parameters are aliases for the single `question` field, and the schema already documents this with 100% coverage. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond stating that arguments are the same as ask_pipeworx, which is sufficient given the schema's completeness.

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 a beta variant of ask_pipeworx, explicitly stating it is an identical universal router with the same 5,724 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable router by emphasizing its experimental edge and live candidate routing improvements.

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 guidance to 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and points to the stable router as the comparison baseline. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the conditional on active candidates and the reference to stable alternatives makes the intended usage fairly clear.

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