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

Beyond read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses that candidate routing improvements are enabled live when under test, that no candidate is currently active, and that it is a full working router with no fallback. This dynamic behavioral context is valuable and 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 compact yet information-dense, front-loading the beta relationship and covering status, usage, and experimental purpose in four sentences. No sentence is wasted.

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 sibling tools and schema simplicity, the description fully covers what the tool is, how to use it, current operational status, and expected response shape (via 'same response shape'). Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, with each alias documented and the question parameter described. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond confirming 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, so it stays at the baseline.

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 variant of ask_pipeworx and specifies its function as a universal router with the same 5,908 tools and response shape. It distinguishes itself from siblings by framing itself as the experimental edge versus the stable ask_pipeworx.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx 'when you want the newest routing,' and contrasts with the stable router whose results are compared for merges. This names the alternative and the condition that selects it, leaving no ambiguity.

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