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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses rich behavioral traits: routing behavior is live-swappable whenever a candidate is under test, the current no-candidate state as of 2026-07-26 makes it identical to the stable router, and it has no fallback (it is a full working router). This tells the agent its behavior may drift over time — highly valuable context the annotations cannot express.

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 sentences, each earning its place: beta identity, current state with a concrete date, usage instruction, and a misconception guard against assuming a fallback chain. It is front-loaded (beta and router identity first). Slight redundancy among 'identical,' 'exactly,' and 'exactly like' could be trimmed, keeping it from a 5.

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 low-complexity tool (one required param, rich safety annotations, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it is, how it behaves now, how it may behave later, how to invoke it, and a reference to ask_pipeworx for the response shape. No critical operational fact 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 description coverage is 100%, with all six parameters documented as aliases of 'question' and a clear description of the required param. The description adds only 'same arguments' as a cross-reference to ask_pipeworx, which is marginal; the schema carries the full parameter-semantics burden, so baseline 3 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 states a specific function — it is the beta variant of the ask_pipeworx universal router, dispatching questions across 5,798 tools with the same arguments and response shape. It clearly differentiates from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling by foregrounding the 'candidate routing improvements' and experimental status.

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?

It explicitly says when to use it — 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' — and names the stable ask_pipeworx as the comparison baseline, plus discloses that results feed merge decisions. However, it never explicitly says when NOT to use it (e.g., preferring stable ask_pipeworx or ask_pipeworx_grounded for reliability), leaving the exclusion to inference from the beta framing.

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