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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the tool is an experimental edge with candidate routing improvements 'enabled live,' none is currently active (last retired 2026-07-26), and it 'falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router.' This preempts the beta-is-a-stub misconception and warns the agent that behavior may change over time, which annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with identity and current-state information, and every sentence earns its place. There is minor redundancy in stressing that it is a real router ('Falls back to nothing' plus 'this IS a full working router'), but the length is justified by the unusual experimental-state 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?

Covers identity, relationship to the stable router, current runtime state, and explicitly references 'same response shape' as ask_pipeworx, which partially compensates for the absent output schema. An agent unfamiliar with the ask_pipeworx family would still lack detail on what a routed response contains, but for a tool whose semantics are inherited from its sibling, this is nearly complete.

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% and the question parameter already documents itself as accepting natural language with all five aliases enumerated. The description adds only 'same arguments' as the parent tool, which is consistent but contributes no new semantic meaning, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Identifies the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx: a universal router over '5,743 tools' with the same arguments and response shape. The name and framing explicitly differentiate it from its stable sibling (ask_pipeworx) while making its core function — routing a question to tools — immediately clear.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use direction: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing,' and explains the purpose of doing so (results are compared against the stable router). It does not, however, mention ask_pipeworx_grounded or state when not to use this variant, leaving a small differentiation gap.

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