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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive. The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing the beta status, that a candidate may be enabled live, that none is currently active, and that it is a full working router rather than a fallback shim. No contradiction with 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 about four sentences and front-loads the beta identity, scope, and current state. Each sentence adds distinct information, though there is slight redundancy between 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly' and 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx.'

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 tool is a question router with one required parameter and full schema coverage, so the description is largely sufficient. It references the same response shape as ask_pipeworx, which is useful only if that sibling is understood, and with no output schema a self-contained return description would have been tighter, but the 'universal router' framing covers the essential behavior.

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 aliases (q, text, input, query, prompt, question) documented per parameter. The description only adds 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx and does not provide any new parameter semantics, so the 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 clearly identifies the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router over 5,798 tools with the same arguments and response shape. It distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx by highlighting the 'candidate routing improvements' and beta/experimental framing, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing,' and points to ask_pipeworx as the stable counterpart being compared. It lacks an explicit when-not clause and does not mention ask_pipeworx_grounded, so it is not a full 5, but the usage context is clear.

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