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

Beyond the read-only, idempotent annotations, the description explains the operational state ('No candidate is active right now'), how results are compared against the stable router, and that it remains a full working router. This provides useful behavioral context not captured by 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 somewhat repetitive, restating the identical nature and experimental status multiple times (e.g., 'identical universal router', 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx', 'this IS a full working router'). It is not overly long but could be tightened without losing key information.

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?

The description covers what the tool is, its current state, how to use it, and the fact that it is a full router despite being beta. It does not describe the response shape in detail, but it references that it matches ask_pipeworx, which is sufficient for an agent familiar with the stable tool.

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 same 'question' input, and the description of the 'question' parameter clarifies that it accepts query, q, prompt, text, and input as aliases. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema descriptions, which only say 'Alias for question.'

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 explains that this is a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with 5,801 tools, and that it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It distinguishes the tool from its stable counterpart and other siblings by noting it is the experimental edge for 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 states to 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and explains that candidate routing improvements are enabled live whenever one is under test, while none is active right now. This gives a clear condition for use, though it could more explicitly contrast with the stable ask_pipeworx or grounded variants.

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