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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the live experimental nature, the current inactive status of candidates (retired 2026-07-26), and the exact match with ask_pipeworx at present. It also clarifies that there is no fallback—this is a functional router on the experimental edge. No contradiction with readOnly/idempotent 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?

Three sentences deliver all essential context: beta relationship, current state, exact usage, and fallback behavior. Every sentence earns its place and the key differentiator 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 tool with no output schema, the description compensates by stating 'same response shape' as ask_pipeworx. It covers current operational status, candidate routing behavior, comparison purpose, and the full-working-router guarantee. An agent has enough to call and interpret results 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description says 'same arguments' but does not add meaning beyond the schema's alias documentation. It neither enriches nor contradicts the parameter details, so the baseline score 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 this as the beta version of ask_pipeworx—a universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded by noting it only differs when candidate routing improvements are under test.

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 states when to use it: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also clarifies that results are compared against the stable router to decide what merges, and that it is a full working router with no fallback, making the choice of this beta over alternatives unambiguous.

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