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

The description adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: it is a full working router with no fallback, it is experimental, it may have a routing candidate active, and no candidate is currently active so behavior matches ask_pipeworx. This transparency about current state and experimental edge is valuable even though annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior.

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 three sentences and front-loads the beta relationship and current status before the usage guidance. The caveat about falling back to nothing is slightly emphatic but earns its place by preventing the assumption that this is a stub.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool is, its experimental nature, current routing-candidate status, how to use it, and how the results are used for comparison. It does not mention ask_pipeworx_grounded, but that is a separate sibling rather than a gap in this tool's definition.

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 schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The description only says the tool has the same arguments as ask_pipeworx, which is useful for parity but adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly identifies itself as a beta/experimental version of ask_pipeworx, describing it as a universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It differentiates itself from stable ask_pipeworx by noting candidate routing improvements, though it does not contrast itself with ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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 says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is desired, and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It could be stronger by naming when to prefer the stable version or the grounded sibling, but the primary use condition is clear.

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